How about some tax breaks on Taco Bell and dog supplies?
Some HuffPo article goes on about how McCain’s a big meanie who doesn’t want women to make as much money as men, blah blah, but the last paragraph is what really got me:
In recent weeks, McCain has proposed a series of tax breaks for corporations, doubling the dependent child tax exemption, government-backed refinancing for struggling homeowners and a summer holiday from gas taxes.
I guess that’s all great if you have kids, drive a lot, or were too stupid to buy a house you could actually afford. I’m guessing there’s no shortage of people that all three of those things apply to.
Meanwhile, I continue to pay top dollar, with nary a tax break in sight, because I refrain from reproducing, fill up my gas tank maybe once a month, and said no the last time a mortgage lender tried to tell me he could put me in a $200,000 house with nothing down. Piss.
Here’s a debate question: is it fair for people to pay less tax simply because they have chosen to have children? I’m sure you can guess where I stand (I say it’s bullshit), but I’m curious to hear logical, sound defenses of this policy. Yeah, if I had kids, I’d take the deduction, but I don’t think I’d feel comfortable saying it’s actually “fair” that the day I popped a baby out I suddenly deserved to pay less tax than the day I did before.
But that’s just me; I’m an antisocial asshole. What do YOU think?
Best explanation I can give is that you, by failing to reproduce, do not provide future cash flows to the government once you’re done working. People with kids get a break because those kids will also pay into the system.
Sort of like a pyramid scheme with the kids being the suckers holding the bag at the end.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pmESTThink of it as a Corporate tax break of sorts. Why do States give companies tax breaks to build their business there? Because getting them there will end up generating revenue. The amount of money you would theoretically make taxing the company ends up coming back to you plus more due to the business they’ve generated.
So with kids its a tax break for individuals. The government is hedging its bets that the kids you pop out will in the future become more good little tax payers. So they give you a break now for having the kid so they can make more money off him 18 years down the road. I mean think about your own life. How much money did your parents not get taxed on while you were their dependent, and how much money have you given the government since you started working? Would you say that was a good investment on the government’s end?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pmESTI totally agree with you that it’s not fair that I don’t get to keep as much of my paycheck as people with kids do. The “girls” here at work think I’m crazy for complaining about having to pay more tax just because I don’t have kids. They claim that they “NEED” the money more than I do. Why is that my problem??? I NEED my money just as much as they do! So what if it’s because I want to see an extra movie, buy some new shoes or get my animals some new toys. They’ll change their minds pretty darn quick when they can’t claim the little buggars in a few more years!!!!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pmESTNope. Not fair at all. Not even remotely fair.
But I take my two exemptions with extreme prejudice every year.
HAH.
In order to control the population and ensure adequate cash infusion into the government, I think it should be mandatory that after a certain number of kids (like two, I know, arbitrarily assigned) rather than continuing to accrue exemptions people should be required to start paying more taxes due to the amount of current and future services those children require.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:36 pmESTI.E. replace the numbers lost, and do not exceed carrying capacity.
DISCLAIMER: I am at home with the flu, so all responses may emerge from a fever-induced delirium.
One of the original reasons for the personal exemption and deductions for dependent family members is the simple idea that taxes should be paid on only income earned which is more than the absolute minimum amount really needed to pay for very basic food and shelter. You get deductions for kids because each one represents that much less discretionary income you can really spend.
Beyond that, yes. Many countries around the world have provided incentives for people who to choose to have babies. Without existing Americans choosing to have babies, we will quickly be overwhelmed with even larger numbers of immigrants than we are now, resulting in drastic changes to our culture and way of life.
Now quicherbichin…
April 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pmESTAmerica needs children, I don’t see why giving little gifts like tax breaks is a bad idea. I’m in favor of tax breaks in general, so why not?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pmESTNo, Rachel, it’s not fair. Most of the current tax code is social engineering by the government.
Flat tax with no deductions or Fair Tax would be the fairest.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:54 pmESTRachel’s got a point, it IS bullshit. My wife and I never had kids, so why should we pay more? Why can’t Rachel claim her dogs and I claim my cats? If “the rich aren’t paying their fair share”, why do my brother and sister-in-law, with two well-compensated careers and two kids, pay less than we do, with one career and no kids? My wife doesn’t work; why can’t I have another deduction for her? The whole tax code is bullshit. Can you say Fair Tax?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pmESTI don’t know about the kids thing, but as far as the gas tax break goes, how much more fair could it be? The more gas you buy, the more tax you pay, and with a tax break, the more you buy, the more you’d save. That’s good for you that you only fill up once a month, but I fill up 3 cars at least once a week. I’m all for a gas tax break…
April 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pmESTRead Mark Steyn’s America Alone. He makes a very succinct argument for why we should be happy there are people willing to take on the sometimes thankless task of raising the next generation.
To summarize: American and American culture will be here in fifty years (maybe). The rest of the Western world, not so much. PatHMV is right about the reasons.
Ever wonder why no one talks about Japan economically taking over the world like people were all panicked about in the ’80’s? They have no people, no economy, no power, no culture, no hope. Literally.
And we are very far from our carrying capacity, Heather. In fact, because of improved technology our carrying capacity has gone up quite a bit in the last thirty years. Maybe not everywhere in the world, but certainly in the US. The air and water is cleaner, and food cheaper (well, until the gov’t decided to tinker with ethanol subsidies) than ever before. And we have lots and lots of space.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pmESTI’m pretty torn.
I would think that once I have kids that are taking advantage of public education and requiring more transportation, and therefore contributing to the wear and tear of the public roads up that much more, I should be paying MORE taxes!
However (as Dani says above), after reading Mark Steyn, I can’t quite bring myself to condemn incentives for American procreation.
By the way, I love you. I only recently found your blog, and it immediately became one of my favorite places on the web. Keep it up.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pmESTWachel wrote: “…I’m an antisocial asshole. What do YOU think?”
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re antisocial or an asshole.
8^)
April 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pmESTDespite having two kids, I agree totally with your point, Rachel. But the point David B. made up above is precisely why the Congress will absolutely never allow any kind of flat tax, nor will they end withholding. It gives them power, power that lures these bastages into the political world in the first place. Giving tax breaks to parents, corporations and left handed taxidermists with gout is the most precise way to cater to the masses. There is a lot of power in throwing certain people a bone while giving other people in another group a degrading butthurting.
It sucks that most of the former Soviet satellite countries have a better handle on the market economy than we do.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pmESTDani says: And we are very far from our carrying capacity, Heather.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pmESTSHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! But thanks a ton for the tax refund.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pmESTWhen I was growing up in the 60’s the tax rate for married couples was considerably lower than for singles (remember this is before most families had two incomes). I asked my father why I (as a single male) should pay more than a married person. He said, “Don’t worry son, it’s worth every penny”. He recovered fairly quickly from the injuries my mother inflicted (just kidding). I suppose the same principle applies to deductions for children.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pmESTFrom a social utility perspective, people should be paid to have kids. Steven Landsburg (who’s a libertarian and, like me, probably doesn’t support this in practice) makes the case here. I don’t support it for the same reason I don’t support other types of income redistribution, but as income redistribution goes, it makes a lot more sense than most.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pmESTWow, I just read through the comments and nobody makes the economic argument for subsidizing kids. That’s kinda sad.
To reiterate: I oppose subsidizing kids, but if you’re one of those who supports income redistribution to correct externality problems, you should love this sort of subsidy…
April 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pmESTI completely agree with you!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pmESTI was at a wedding the other day speaking to a young mother of three. I asked her how she could afford three children (knowing that she did not make enough to support them). Her response was a list of way too many government aid programs. And then she gets tax breaks on top of it? Meanwhile, I’ll patiently save MY money to afford My unborn babies while I also support hers. WHYYYYYY????
The jist of the argument is that each child brings costs and benefits with it. The benefits, however, are spread out over all of society (because except for people like NPR employees and welfare moms, each of us produces more than he consumes), while the costs are concentrated to parents. This suggests that, left to their own devices, people have fewer than the optimal number (from society’s perspective) of children. Economic growth is encouraged by encouraging childbirth.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pmESTSo how many deductions (read kids) does it take to offset the marriage penalty? Those of us that are married with no children have even MORE of a right to bitch (not that the LACK of a right has ever stopped me)
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pmESTFair? No, I suppose not.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep doing it, though. The way I see it, any excuse to lower the tax rate on anyone, anywhere, any time, is a good excuse.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pmESTRachel, Rachel, Rachel,
Girl, you done did it now. Not only is it not unfair, it is as close to fair as an income tax policy can be. A flat tax wouldn’t change anything, in that respect anyway, there would still be a certain amount allowed per person before the tax kicked in.
Before going further let me state for the record: My wife and I are childless. We didn’t plan it that way, it just happened. So any defense of the exemption for children isn’t motivated by greed.
It takes a certain amount of money to live. The government, perhaps because they aren’t as stupid as most of us -including myself - like to believe, says that they won’t tax that bare minimum. If it takes X dollars for one person to live on then they figure it takes 2X dollars for two people to live on and 3X dollars for three people to live on, etc. etc. etc.
This is a good thing for it covers not just children but folks in their old age who move in with their grown children and become their dependents. It provides an incentive for families to provide for their own and not push them off onto government care.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pmESTDearRachel,
1. Employed couples should actually be paid by the government to have children, on the theory that they are producing future taxpayers (these couples meet both requirements of that statement: they are producing someone who has the potential to pay future taxes and, being employed, they are likely to pass on a value system that puts emphasis on getting a job). Unless the number of future taxpayers increases in this way, you childless people’s Social Security will be a burden on my children, who will already be burdened with paying my Social Security.
2. I would have your children, DearRachel. And I am a man. That’s how much I admire you!
Yr. Obedient Servant,
April 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pmESTmike
the entire tax code exists for just one purpose - social (re)engineering … and our pet fascists in Washinton will never give that up.
It could be worse. Canada has a deduction for spawn … as well as checks that get mailed out to parents EVERY MONTH for the little squealers. At least until they’re 16 … at which time, unless things have changed since I left a decade ago, the check (or cheque) gets mailed to the squealer until it turns 18 … at which time it’ws no longer a children and is abruptly dropped and expected to start paying taxes.
And it just occurred to me … the “It Takes A Village” idiot haa been whining for years about Child Poverty (imagine! The horror! Rugrats are not born automatically rich!!!). So she she or the Obamamamama get into the White House, they’ll be taxing you even more for other peoples kids …
April 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pmESTNations need populations. Dani brings up Europe in a roundabout way by mentioning “America Alone”. Much of Europe is breeding (that doesn’t seem the right word, but I can’t think of better) at well below replacement rate. Consequently, they’re dragging in lots of middle easterners to fill out their population. Consequently, they’re getting middle eastern ideas and culture supplanting their own. Now they could certainly lock the doors and bar the gates but then jobs would go unfilled, economies would collapse, and things would get really rocky. In short, we see a whole contenant choosing to drift toward muslim extremism rather then put up with low population.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pmESTThis being the case, we can fairly say that the people raising the next generation of Americans are doing everyone a service. As such, we give them a tax break that makes up for some of their costs. However, also based on the idea that kids are a concern to all of us, we make them put up with a lot of laws on how they must raise their kids.
In a strange way, they occupy a position similar to soldiers. They help us all, get some money from the government, and put up with more government. None of it is to the same degree as what’s seen in the military, but it’s based on the same logic.
Flat Tax..cha-cha-cha…Flat Tax…cha-cha-cha!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pmESTPeople keep bringing up the fact that kids will pay more taxes in the future as a reason to subsidize them. It seems to me that’s a reason not to subsidize them. A better reason would be the goods and services they’ll be producing and not wasting on the government. That’s the stuff you and I will get to buy.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:46 pmESTRachel: As a 46 year old childless male, I say No: It’s not unfair.
Look at it this way: You (and I) got to spend our 20s and 30s spending our money on whatever we damn well pleased. Beer. Tickets to Maui. Guns. Goat Porn. Whatever.
People with rug rats had to spend their hard earned money on milk, teething crackers, visits to the emergency room and shoes that the kids will outgrow in 4 months (and this doesn’t even take into account the time those parents put in while you and I got to stay out all night drinking and sleeping in a pool of our own vomit.)
And yet…those rug rats will be the ones wiping the drool off our chins when we are in the old folks home. Not only will they be wiping the drool off, they’ll be paying taxes that will go to our social security.
So, short answer, they deserve it. And let me just say a genuine and heartfelt “thanks” to all the parents out there who sacrificed their 20s and 30s raising the next generation of taxpayers so I could live my life of pointless self destruction.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pmESTMartin:
“Beer. Tickets to Maui. Guns. Goat Porn. drinking and sleeping in a pool of our own vomit.”
Doesn’t sound very “pointless” to this Navy veteran.
mike
April 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pmESTI read all the comments and nothing so far has convinced me it’s fair. I’m with you, but maybe all antisocial assholes think alike.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pmESTUsing the taxation system as a form of behavioral control is a socialist act.
Being anti-socialst, you probably have a natural aversion to such actions. As do I.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pmESTRachel,
Sorry to post off topic, but as a dog lover (and a human lover and a moonbat hater) you need to read this and be outraged:
http://gullyborg.typepad.com/weblog_archive/2008/04/this-is-how-pro.html
And yes, I think people who care for animals should get a tax break for it.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pmESTHeather, I’m not sure I would trust a site that has statements such as “nearly 100% of children born in California and New York are born to immigrants.” Actually nearly 100% of babies born everywhere in the USA are born to immigrants. Except maybe Native American babies, but they’re immigrants, too, they just go further back.
David Krumm, you mention the law, and that’s a very interesting point. That’s why the State also has a vested interest in pregnancy. Rachel’s already had her go-round with that issue lately, so I don’t want to bring it up again, but if one had the population down to around, say, 40,000 people one might even find that abortion would become illegal based on the best interest of the group as a whole. Especially if you were the last survivors of your race. And then you could get it on TV and call it Battlestar Galactica.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pmESTTake that Ponzi scheme, Social Security (please!). We are paying for our parent’s SS checks. My children will be paying for my SS check, in theory. In actuality, Social Security will bite the big one, because my children aren’t enough to compensate for folks like you who aren’t having any.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pmESTOf course, you may think that’s a good thing. Just remember that in 20 years when the feds tell you SS is broke even though they took 10%+ of your paycheck for it all your working life.
Martin you’re welcome! But it really wasn’t that bad. With the nanny (not a goat, just to be clear) we went to Maui anyway. And Kauai, and the Big Island, and Oahu.
The trick is to get money before you have kids. That’s when I worked my a** off.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pmESTMy husband works with a guy that makes the same exact wages as he does, works the same hours, and gets the same crappy benefits at his job.
Each year the co-worker brags about how much of a tax refund he is going to get, usually $4,000 - $6,000 just because he produced 4 little rug rats. My husband and I don’t have children (by choice) so we don’t get the tax advantage, although we don’t have to bear the burden of 4 crump pickers either. But it doesn’t seem fair that his co-worker gets a HUGE check every year from the gub-erment just for reproducing.
Then to top it off, the co-worker doesn’t even spend the money on the kids, he usually goes out and spends it on himself, or on his hot-rod, or something stupid like that.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pmESTLee,
regardless of what your husband’s coworker does immediately after he cashes his tax refund check, I can’t imagine he doesn’t spend far more than $4-6000 a year on his kids.
But I’m not a parent, so I concede I might be wrong.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pmESTWhy are so many of you anti-children? You realize you were once a child and that without children our civilization dies?
April 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pmESTI dunno, the state does have a vested interest in having a future tax base, so I can kind of understand tax credits for having children.
The one that really chaps my ass is how much you have to spend on medical expenses before you can deduct it. I’m a type 1 diabetic, I have to spend a lot of money on medication each month OR I DIE. Which would also reduce the states tax base you assholes.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pmESTI’ve never understood why I have to finance other folk’s sex life.
All the crap about parents deserving tax breaks ’cause kids cost more bla bla bla is total bull. KIDS ARE OPTIONAL PEOPLE!!! If ya wanna spend your money on ‘em do so but QUIT FORCING ME TO PAY FOR YOUR SEXCAPADES!
Yeah it pisses me off. Married no kids BY CHOICE. And yes, I was one of those who checked the “over $30K” in Fed taxes on your survey a few days ago.
Don’t get me started on property tax, hell first I’ve got to fund your sex life, and now you want me to pay for your kid’s education. Jesus, can’t parent be responsible FOR THEIR OWN DAMN DECISIONS!
Goddamn freaking nanny state.
Later
April 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pmESTI don’t see anything wrong with subsidizing kids. However I do think I should not have to pay that part of my property taxes that goes for the school system. Once your kids graduate from high school you should be done.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:25 pmESTI used to be annoyed as well until the dhimmi whackjobs began rattling their RPGs in our general direction. Steyn’s correct. We need to keep reproducing so we’re not pushed out of our own nest. Folks around here remain very “nuclear family” inclined. Now, I try to smile at the little bastards and the parents in an encouraging manner since I didn’t contribute to this cause, and it’s too late now.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pmESTI’m going to have to go with NevadaDailySteve - if you actually instituted a fair tax system that taxes everyone’s income equally, you’d have a lot more people that would much rather dump their kids in the nearest orphanage than actually take care of their own, if only so they could continue to pay the bills. That said, I’d be all over taxing the income of those under the age of 18 at a rather heinous rate to even things out a bit (say, 75%+?). I mean, I don’t like taxes, but I dislike teenagers so much more…
In short, no, it’s not fair, but it is incredibly pragmatic. Life is like that.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pmESTI think it’s only justified as fair if you think “ability to pay” is something to worthwhile to take into account when it comes to figure out how much a given taxpayer should pay. There is no question that children cost money to shelter/clothe/feed, and once they exist, that is a real responsibility that people have and does cost money.
Even if it is unfair, it might still be justified from a policy perspective, in terms of encouraging reproduction and allocating some of society’s wealth to young families so that they can be raise better children (?). There is no question that low birth rate can be a problem (see Italy, et al), and i don’t think there is a problem with the birth rate being too high right now in the U.S.
Anyway, it is pretty insane what sorts of credits and deductions the feds currently give, and how large they are. Tax expenditures are listed in the budget, and make for an interesting, and perhaps shocking, read:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/apers/receipts.pdf
April 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pmESTFair it is not.
Flat tax with no loopholes based on a percentage of income. Let’s say 3% across the board. Make more, pay more tax. Make nothing, pay no tax.
Since it’s a pain and also intrusive to keep track of what everybody makes, let’s just make it a consumption tax. i.e. 3% of everything sold goes in the Federal maw. Simple. Gets rid of the IRS. Nobody ever has to file taxes. Heavenly, in fact.
Once upon a time citizens of this land had the stones to tell the British to sit and spin on their piddly little taxes.
We bend over and willingly accept much worse treatment at the hands (or whatever) of our elected government representatives today.
I say it is high time for another armed revolt to water the tree of freedom with the blood of tyrants and patriots…..but that’s just me.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pmESTThere are two aspects to this. One is the “deduction”, which I feel is entirely fair. As someone said above, $X for one, $2X for 2, etc. The second is the “credits” - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Additional Child Tax Credit, etc. Those are the completely unfair, blatant wealth distribution aspects of the current tax code. The thing about these credits is that they’re considered “refundable” credits, meaning that if the credit exceeds your tax liability, you get the difference.
My wife thinks I’m insane (for a lot of other reasons, but for the one germane to this discussion) because I would support a politician who would eliminate these credits. The reason I’m insane is that we’re an enlisted-military single-income family of five who has profited from these credits. However, I would gladly give up mine if it meant that no one else would get them either. Then, they wouldn’t have to collect the money to pay them out, and we all get more cash that we can use to stimulate the economy, instead of providing handouts to deadbeats.
I’m a big FairTax fan. Tax it all equally - you pay the same percentage of that $10 you make mowing the grass as you do the $1.2M you make every year as a great big muckety-muck. Of course, with the FairTax, you’re not taxed on your income at all - even better! Eliminate capital gains taxes. Can you imagine how much money would flood our economy if you could invest pre-tax money and not pay taxes on the profits you make on it? There’s a powerful incentive to invest, for those who don’t feel it’s worth it.
So, to summarize - deductions, yes; credits, no.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:37 pmESTDani, Just so I am sure we are on the same page of the definition of carrying capacity, here’s mine:
Also, as part of my definition:
It is my estimation that the US is in the “quality of life focus,” and I’d sure like it to stay that way.
I’m NOT a doomsayer, it’s just that when I see a moratorium on rice purchases on CNN, I tend to worry about the quality of life issues.
I’m just saying.
I got my information from these places:
http://dieoff.org/page58.htm
April 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pmESThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
But kids are a choice - why should someone get $4-6k/yr for kids, but I not get the same to spend on other things that matter to me?
The way I see it, I have 3 kids, and I’m sure I spend more than that on them each year. However, I don’t see it as a “problem” that demands a government “solution.” It’s my responsibility to provide for them, not Uncle Sam’s.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pmESTLee - That just means he filled out his W-4 to pay in more money than he has to, and gets it back at the end of the year. So what? Your husband could do that, too. It would mean having less each pay period, of course, but by the time that other guy gets done spending his money on bills, he probably has less left than your husband would if he changed his withholding to take out another $100 a week or so.
Or you could take $100 per week and put it into an interest-bearing account, and have even MORE money to take out at the end of a year than you would if you let the Government hold it in escrow for that year.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:43 pmESTI’d eliminate most deductions if I could, including the ones for children and mortgage interest, both of which I gladly take advantage of each year. For the record, I didn’t marry until I was 37 and my first child was born when I was 39. I paid quite a bit more in taxes than I do now, so I understand where you’re coming from. Is it fair? I’m not certain that that’s the appropriate question. I am raising the next generation of tax revenue producers. Since the government has some self interest in keeping money pouring in, I would say that that is somewhat of a justification for this particular tax break, albeit a pretty weak one.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pmESTHey, lady, it’s your freakin’ choice not to reproduce. Just like it’s mine to have kids, go to work each day, pay taxes, own a house I could afford. Give it a rest already, lady. You make your choices and I make mine. If the gov’t pay me back a bit of $ for that, well that is fine as I suspect I pay a whole hell of a lot more taxes than you do…
Can’t wait to hear you change your tune when you and whatz his name have kids.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pmESTRachel it doesn’t seem fair at all but I am keeping the money. Really. When I think about it though capitalism is based on growth and a growing population results in a growing economy. The tax break for having children provides an incentive to grow our population. Think what would happen to business and industry if the population declined.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pmESTHey, lady, it’s your freakin’ choice not to reproduce. Just like it’s mine to have kids, go to work each day, pay taxes, own a house I could afford. Give it a rest already, lady. You make your choices and I make mine. If the gov’t pay me back a bit of $ for that, well that is fine as I suspect I pay a whole hell of a lot more taxes than you do…
Can’t wait to hear you change your tune when you and whatz his name have kids.
Aw. It’s no surprise someone as sweet and endearing as you has kids. I wish someone as fair-minded as you are could’ve been my dad.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pmESTFreedomLover, I agree. I don’t understand why there is such resentment toward children here. Children keep our society healthy. I think it’s completely fine if people choose not to have children. It’s probably better that they know they don’t want to be a parent, rather than have kids and be a bad parent to them.
The government subsidizes behavior, and for now they think that families are a good thing. Trust me, the tax break doesn’t even begin to cover the costs of having a child. I’m an animal lover too, but having pets is nowhere near what having a child is like. (Plus they won’t be paying taxes in the future) So the “pet subsidy” argument isn’t very valid.
And can we keep the bitterness towards children and people that choose to have children to a minimum please? I don’t see any parents on here bashing childless people’s lifestyle choices…
April 24th, 2008 at 4:02 pmESTDani,
April 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pmESTI wrote a whole long post about my definitiion of carrying capacity … but it disappeared into the ether … let’s just say I totally agree on get settled first, and then pump out the children and leave the rest for when my brain is functioning:)
I agree it’s not fair, I would MUCH rather have everyone pay the same rates with no kids advantage and no marriage penalty and no huge advantage for people who buy a more expensive house, BUT maybe it’s not a terrible idea to encourage RESPONSIBLE taxpayers to have kids?
I mean, because paying welfare queens to have kids has worked soooo much better for us?
Edited to add:
Saw the comment from Newguy40 after I posted — Wow, I seriously can’t believe that the abortion post didn’t get any mean comments and this one did. I’ve really gotten used to this blog being a haven of calm & logical people so it’s pretty jarring!
April 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pmESTIt is in the state’s interest to encourage child-raising. People get a standard exemption based on (I assume) some archaic formula about keeping this much money untaxed to help you pay bills. People with children have more living expenses. It’s that simple.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pmESTProbably because we’re bitter that people who can’t afford them continue to pop them out like their uterus is a damn gumball machine and we have to shell out more tax dollars to pay for them. Gotta love those ever increasing government handouts. I don’t mind a tax break when the child is a toddler because clearly most of the income parents take in when their kid is not in school goes towards diapers, food and daycare. The tax break is not really a benefit to the parent at that stage. However, when a child is enrolled in school, I believe the tax break should cease or be lowered. I do not have kids and I am often annoyed that I can’t get 6 weeks of free vacation for popping out a kid (anyone who argues this….I know women who have had their kids and then stuck them in daycare while they enjoyed their 6 weeks off work…so pisses me off). Might be nice if instead of “maternity leave” every employee, male or female, childless or not, gets a mandatory 8 wks vacation every year. I know…pipe dream!
April 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pmESTI haven’t seen a single comment that was “anti-kid”. This has nothing to do with the worth or lack thereof of actual human children and everything to do with the federal government subsidizing your personal choices, such as having offspring.
And it has nothing to do with bashing “lifestyle choices” per se. It’s the federal government’s partial FUNDING of those lifestyle choices that is the issue here.
I haven’t been convinced yet. You all keep saying it’s an investment in future taxpayers, but hello? Every single future worthless bum, welfare queen, criminal, and all-around total loser is a kid at some point and you’re “investing” in them, too. Which is particularly worrisome when you consider the birth rates of the different socioeconomic groups and who you’re really giving the most money to.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pmESTBut those aren’t the people we’re talking about here. We’re talking about regular job-holding salary-earning taxpayers. I join you in resenting eople who drain the system because they’re too sorry to take care of their children themselves. But I am completely unapologetic and have no sympathy for anybody who resents the “second (or third or fourth) mouth to feed, second (or third or fourth) tax exemption” standard.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pmESTI don’t know that it’s an investment in future taxpayers. I think it’s simpler: state needs people to perpetuate. Read Steyn and look at Europe. It’s in the government’s interest to encourage procreation, regardless of whether those children grow up to pay more taxes.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pmESTPeople don’t just get a tax refund check from the govt. - It is a refund of paycheck/wage/salary deductions paid in. This clown getting the big refund is claiming too many deductions and is allowing the govt to have his money far longer than he should.
It is not just children - it is “dependent(s)”. If your parents are living with you and you are supporting them, then they are your dependents and you get a deduction for them. You don’t pay less tax because you have more dependents - you have less taxable income because you are supporting more people on the income you bring in. If you think that the tax break for kids can even begin to cover what it costs to have them, raise them, etc., you are clueless. Each kid seems to increase household expenses geometrically.
I say this as a married person with one child.
I personally think that all income tax is wrong. This whole disparity discussion becomes moot if we abolish income tax. Ease restrictions on 401K contributions and other barriers to investment (personal and corporate). Income tax is itself a marxist effort at income redistribution - some idea that the wage earners don’t deserve the money they make. Increase sales tax, if you really feel it is a zero-sum game and that you need to compensate somehow. Look at the federal budget figures sometime, most of the Fed operating capital comes from tariffs, licences, fees, and such.
Why are taxes levied on income? Why are taxes not levied on net worth? Wouldn’t that screw up the liberal elites (Kennedys, Rockefellers, US Senators, etc.)? Bet every last one of those folks would resist a change like that with every fiber of their beings….. [Note that I don't support levies on net worth either - just askin', is all]
Let me add: If I get 5 deductions because I have 4 dependents and the only deduction you get is for yourself (1), you pay more tax than I do. I am feeding, housing, clothing 5 people, you are just doing that for yourself. I have less disposable income than you do, thus less taxable income. You do not in any way subsidize or support me in having 5 people to support - I do that with my own income. I pay less tax to the govt because I have taken on the responsibility of support of more people than you, thus preventing the govt from having to support those people. I am doing you a favor by taking on these dependents, because you do not have to pay for them through your taxes.
The problems and abuse come from other programs, like welfare.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmESTFreedomlover,
We’re not anti-children. Speaking for myself, I’m anti-progressive tax as it exists, not anti-kid. Don’t go making wild assumptions. This is about the willy-nilly way the gubmint deems who gets a break and who gets hosed. And as for “benefitting” from the child credit, I still paid out the ass anyway, so what fucking good did it do me?
April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmESTProbably because we’re bitter that people who can’t afford them continue to pop them out like their uterus is a damn gumball machine and we have shell out more tax dollars to pay for them.
I just blew Diet Pepsi all over my laptop, so you owe me $1000!
Here, taxpayers, pop your quarters in the slot, turn the handle, and out comes another tax deduction for someone else … BWAHAHAH
April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmESTNor do I see how this is inherently unfair. You keep a basic percentage of your income, as opposed to paying it to the government, based on a formula that takes into account what it probably costs to feed and house you. People with children pay by a similar formula that also includes who else they have to feed and house.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmESTYears ago I would have agreed with you that it’s unfair, but now that I have 2 kids I’ve changed my mind and perspective. Until you have kids, you really just don’t know. You may certainly have an opinion about kids (especially other people’s brats) but until you actually have kids of your own you cannot understand the challenges and rewards of parenthood. My wife and I slept on a double bed for several years, which was fine, and then bought a king mattress. What an epiphany! We literally had no idea how small that old bed was until we replaced it with something larger. We could no more go back to being childless than we could go back to the double mattress. You just don’t know until you actually find out.
All you childless posters can bitch all you want about how unfair the child deduction is to you, but I don’t really care because, as a parent, I know something that you not only don’t know, you simply can’t know.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pmESTThe only defense I can think of is that its particularly harsh of the government to tax people to the point where they can’t even afford to have children. The child tax credit then is a tacit admission that tax rates are already high enough to interfere with people’s liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. It may be unjust that people who choose to have the kids they’ve always wanted get a tax break and people who choose to have the snowmobile they’ve always wanted don’t, but I see how it came about.
And in order of operations terms, if you repeal the child tax credit without doing anything else, you’re going to leave the raising of children only to the well off and the welfare cases, and freeze out the working families. Careful what you wish for.
I would, in an instant, trade away the child tax credit if it were attached to lowering the overall income tax rate and repealing all federal funding for K-12 education. Sadly this is not on the table in the short term.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pmESTI haven’t been convinced yet. You all keep saying it’s an investment in future taxpayers, but hello? Every single future worthless bum, welfare queen, criminal, and all-around total loser is a kid at some point and you’re “investing” in them, too. Which is particularly worrisome when you consider the birth rates of the different socioeconomic groups and who you’re really giving the most money to.
Rachel, understand I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but when it’s in the form of a tax deduction, you’re really not financing welfare queens and criminals, because that’s not generally taxed income.
I think this is one of the more harmless of incentive systems. Although I’d like to go on the record requesting tax-free Taco Bell.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pmESTObligatory non-parent bash,
HOW DARE you selfish jerks deliberately choose to remain childless? We all have to do our part to contribute to the betterment of society, and you people are SIMPLY NOT holding up your end! Therefore, you must pay more taxes and put up with the public actions of the wonderful experience of child-rearing you are missing because you refuse to conform …
It’s your own fault for railing against thousands of years of biology and societal norms, so just shut up and take your punishment.
(Removes tongue from cheek)
April 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pmESTWow, do I feel better!
I haven’t had time to read all of the responses yet, but I’m wondering how you folks feel about the $10,000 tax credit for adopting a child. And if you don’t pay that much in a year, you have up to five years to collect it.
I’m not sure what the justification or reasoning behind it is, perhaps somebody could enlighten me.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pmESTI’m guessing the thinking is that if the adopted child is no longer in foster care etc, the state saves many dollars. In fact, the state probably saves several times that amount every year. It may serve to have more people adopt - it may somewhat offset legal and other expenses involved in adoption.
I don’t get too upset about the dependent deduction. I get cranky about child tax credits.
I’d go for a system with a fair tax - only deductions would be to some retirement type account. No deductions for anything else. Every one should be encouraged to save, and everyone should have a stake in the system. (I took better care of my bike when I had to chip in to buy it.)
April 24th, 2008 at 5:20 pmESTJay:
I don’t think the point of this thread is the fulfillment of having children.
If you want to bask in the knowledge of having children–and knowing something the rest of us don’t, then you’d better be prepared to pay for it.
I don’t care to pay for something I can’t or don’t know.
This is as of last year. My wife and I both worked at jobs that don’t pay much; so we worked several additional jobs to have something for a rainy day. And come tax time, we paid–A LOT! The federal and state government decided that we made more than we should have, and therefore owed the government more.
Our neighbor, has no job, he does odd-under-the table kinds of contract jobs, pais no taxes, has three daughters and a son–the youngest. They’re given free meals in school, which comes from city taxes which I pay.
His wife cleans homes, for cash under the table, and is let go very often, because she demands more. Her reasoning: these people are millionaires, it should not be a problem for them to pay me more.
The family receives every subsidy that the county can provide, and I don’t think they’ve ever written a check to the IRS. I’d really like to know what their annual refund is.
And he told me that the only reason he stopped having children was because his fourth was a son.
Is this what you meant, Jay–about knowing that the rest of us don’t.
Chester
April 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pmESTYou’re right. We don’t know what it’s like to have to go to work after having no sleep because a screaming child kept us awake for 4 hours more than we needed to be. We don’t know what it’s like to go to the store and have to hear “MOMMMMIEEEEE!!! I want THAT toy NOW!!” followed by wailing and screaming so embarassing that you have to leave. Immediately. We don’t know how much it sucks to have to watch Barney every single day, cook macaroni and cheese 50 times a week or spend money buying (insert pointless toy your kid will play with for 5 minutes here). We don’t know what it’s like not be able to plan a spur-of-the-moment weekend getaway (or go on any vacation without the kids for that matter). We have no idea what it’s like to have to use one of our precious few vacation days because our kid has a cough and daycare won’t let them in that day. We don’t know what it’s like to go to dinner without it involving a children’s menu, crayons and a silent prayer that they shut up long enough so that we can take 3 bites of our own meal for ONCE.
Maybe the reason the government gives such a kick-ass tax break is because it knows having kids probably makes you miserable for about 18 years. (I want someone with kids to admit I’m right….)
Oh and Chester Simms…1. Thanks for depressing me. I now hate people even more than I did 5 minutes ago. 2. I think you ought to make a little “anonymous” call to the IRS. Sounds like someone is not claiming his “under the table” income.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pmESTGood point. I hadn’t thought about the foster care aspect of it. Probably because my wife and I adopted from overseas. (Yes, I did get the tax credit so I can’t complain about it).
April 24th, 2008 at 5:34 pmESTApril 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pmEST
Chester, you said it yourself, those people are paying taxes, they therefore aren’t getting the child deduction, and they are also committing tax fraud.
Here’s a thought:
Don’t we often complain how liberals treat tax refunds as if it is the government giving something away, instead of not stealing it in the first place? Don’t we hate when they say “tax give aways to the rich” simply because they aren’t stealing as much as they used to?
The child deduction simply means they are keeping more of THEIR OWN money (for you RWN readers, sorry to channel rose). I understand the jealousy at not having a similar way to keep more of your own money, but that doesn’t meant those that do find a way don’t deserve it, or that it is somehow unfair. I get a fairly large refund too (combined fed/state was about 5-grand this year) but that is because I put 15% of each pre-tax pay check into a 401K, 10% of each post-tax pay check to charity, and several hundred dollars a month on Mortgage interest (I suppose the theory is that those dollars help grow the economy, generating tax revenue from elsewhere, so they don’t get taxed from me).
You want a higher refund, start giving away more of your money to non-profits. Start putting more in tax-deferred investment accounts, get another high interest mortgage. In essence, sacrifice your current disposable income. Children are one such sacrifice.
The tax system is unfair inherently. Some one found a way to make it a little more fair for them (by having a kid and getting the deduction), that doesn’t make it inherently more unfair for you. By complaining about the deductions you start to sound socialist, misery redistribution, you have too much, so you think the government should make sure other people everyone have too much too.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pmESTI’m not editing the comment I left at 5:44, but it is labeled as awaiting moderation. I’ve read it again and have no idea what set off the alarm. Please check back into that time frame later, I think it is relevant. Thank you.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pmESTTracy:
Sorry to depress you. That wasn’t the intent.
O
I also have no need to check on anybody’s claim. I only wrote what this person admitted to me.
The point I was trying to make was that people thing that people seem to think that they deserve this break for having children, dealing with them for how ever many years, etc. But you no doubt also derive a lot of joy from your children. And I am happy that you derive fulfillment and joy from your kids, as you absolutely should.
But to presume that one steals from Peter to pay Paul …
Chet
April 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pmESTThe whole argument about “we deserve more deductions because we have more mouths to feed” is BULLSHIT. You created that extra mouth in the first place. You should have made sure you could afford it before you did. The same goes for elderly dependents. They should have put enough aside during their productive years to pay for their dotage. And if you see your parents not doing this, like I do, plan accordingly. I know I’ll be supporting my mom within about 10 years. And I dispute the idea that “society needs children to perpetuate itself.” I’m part of society, and I’m taking care of myself and am ensuring that I can do so even when I’m no longer able to work. It’s not like people will stop having kids if the government stops ripping me off to encourage it. There will always be someone I can pay to “wipe the drool off my face” when it becomes necessary. If we’re not having enough kids ourselves (which seems preposterous to me), we can address any shortfalls through intelligent immigration policies (able-bodied, hard working, intelligent, English-speaking requirements). TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR CHOICES, PEOPLE! Don’t demand a subsidy from me.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pmESTRachel, you said:
I’m pretty sure there are more decent taxpayers born & raised in this country than welfare queens (a royal position that is actually hard to hold these days, thanks *cough* to Bill Clinton *cough*) bums or all-around total loser. If it were not so, we’d have gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket long ago.
Now this paragraph worries me, Rachel. It sounds a little elitist. You’re talking about the working poor. The people who are really sponging don’t get any of this money. Isn’t it the American dream to be able to improve your lot in life? I guess the difference is if one thinks the money is going to help the parent or the child. The government (and me) obviously takes the view that it helps the child. We want more kids. Even if they’re poor kids. Because they can grow up and be more productive than their parents.
In my family it went like this: Coal miner off the boat from Slovenia. Children become electrician, LPN, welder, soldier, salesmen, miner. Grandchildren all have degrees (mostly graduate degrees and all working in the private sector). But back in the day my grandparents were those high-birth rate immigrants back when being Bohemian wasn’t cool, it was lower than being Irish, for pity’s sake.
Immigration is a different issue. That needs to be controlled, there’s no doubt. But I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, even if it’s kind of muddied.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pmESTA-FRICKIN’-MEN, cknight! Now how do we convince the world of these ideas?
Ken….I’d like to think the tax credit for adoption is the one good thing the government actually does to encourage people to adopt instead of creating litters of babies through IVF. But I doubt that’s why.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pmESTWow, cknight. Are you claiming all the deductions and exemptions you can? Do you have a 401K? Are you a homeowner? Trust me, the govt is not giving me any subsidies. My taxable income is just reduced by the amount of my allowable deductions. The govt recognizes that I have more mouths to feed, therefore I have less taxable income - because I spend it on things the tax code allows as deductions. Do you have a spouse? Do you claim a deduction for your spouse, your mortgage interest paid, your contributions to your 401K? Have you invested in a farm and can you then claim deductions for that? Are you accounting for all legal reductions of your taxable income?
Or do you just piss away all your income on non-deductable booze and loose sexual partners? Or do you deduct your business expenses on your trips to Nevada casinos (and other establishments)? Do you consider these reductions of your taxable income federal subsidies?
Note that I don’t like the idea of subsidizing anyone else anymore than anyone else here does. But these are legitimate reductions in my own taxable income.
Reminder: The precept that “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is directly out of the Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx. If you are concerned that you are paying more taxes than I, then you need to find more deductions.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pmESTWhile we’re onthe topic of stupid tax law.
How about the “owned housing” subsidy where you can deduct your mortgage interest from your taxes.
Away with it!
Hint: All it does is RAISE the price of real estate, and encourage churn inthe market.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:43 pmESTI’m with Dani and like minds on this one. I am single and childless, live within my means, pay out a substantial amount in taxes, and think it would be churlish and wrong to not give tax breaks to parents. This is in light of the “support the future taxpayer” arguments given above, and in recognition of the fact my siblings and I received many, many thousands of dollars in services from the government growing up in schooling alone.
I am as skeptical of the nanny state as anybody, and would agree that much of the education money (I know, more from property taxes than income taxes) could be more wisely spent. But the investment seems entirely worthwhile.
PS I do detect an anti-child sentiment in this thread, and that’s speaking as somebody who would also prefer not to eat around them. Maybe I’m just being sentimental about birth not being about popping or squirting or gumball machines.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pmESTCknight,
Well said. It still strikes me as odd, that so many otherwise responsible parents, expect me to fund their personal lifestyle.
What a bunch of free-loaders.
Later
April 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pmESTYou know, I’m a renter, and I don’t see the government stepping in to help me when my rent goes up — which it has twice in the last year. I don’t pay, I get evicted. You don’t pay your mortgage, you get bailed out. With my taxes. Something isn’t quite right there.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:03 pmESTI’m fine with that - as far as I’m concerned the only break should be savings for retirement.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pmESTYou know what the really interesting thing is about all this? We have the highest birth rate in the first world, and the worst government child and parent subsidies. I wonder why? It could be that taxes and subsidies don’t matter at all. I think it’s probably a combination of religiosity, relative wealth and hope. Unfortunately, governments are better at screwing up these things than fostering them. If you think your kid is going to grow up in a crappy place, all the subsidies in the world won’t make you want to have a child- if you can help it.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pmESTOf course I did. And I can afford to raise him without any tax breaks, thanks. That’s not what this is about. I’m about done saying this since nobody seems to be listening, but it is in the interest of the government to encourage child-rearing. And it’s not because CKnight won’t have anybody to wipe drool from his face (so charming, his language and images) but because if our birthrates fall to where Europe’s are, American ideals will not be supportable. Foreign people, foreign influences, and eventually a totally different style of country will take its place.
It’s not from you. It’s simply paying less of the parents’ money to the government in total, but not necessarily per person, than you are.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pmESTI’m with thecobrasnose. Phrases like “litter of kids” and the idea that it’s better to adopt so as not to create said litters are definitely anti-child and anti-parent. Sorry, Rachel, but I completely disagree about anti-kid rhetoric here. I read you despite it, not because of it, I don’t like all the naked anger against parents for “popping out” brats, etc., and this is one of the reasons I rarely get involved in your comments.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:29 pmESTWhat Ith said.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pmESTI really think the overarching issue here is personal responsibility (probably the issue most likely to be behind just about everything that happens or doesn’t happen). If you want kids, more power to you. I admire anybody to can be that unselfish with their money and their time. I realized long ago that I am an anti-social selfish bitch with expensive hobbies not conducive to human multiplication.
For people who have kids, the money shouldn’t have been taken in the first place (hell, I’d say that’s applicable to all of us). For those of us without kids, we should not be expected to finance the raising of somebody else’s rugrats unless we choose to (I have a niece and nephew on the way I don’t mind spending money on). I refuse to be held even partially financially responsible for some brats I don’t know and could care less about.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pmESTI say it again, tax credits and standard dependent deductions do *not* represent our kids being financed by the rest of you. Welfare moms are not what we’re talking about here. I.E. your taxes do not go *up* when mine go down.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pmESTI don’t care much about the deductions. The money shouldn’t have been taken in the first place, like I said. But for those people who own their own houses and pay property taxes, they finance public education. Forget the fact that public education just plain sucks anyway, we’re supposed to feel better that part of the property taxes go toward The Children®, even if they aren’t ours? And giving somebody extra money, e.g. credits, just for partaking in the wonders of child-rearing doesn’t sit well with me, either.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pmESTTax credits are not extra money. They denote less money that is taxable.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pmESTOr rather, less tax that has to be paid. I’m getting tired.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pmESTWhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to either punish or reward any legal behavior?
Is there a missing Federalist Paper that expounds upon the virtues of social engineering?
Sure, raising decent human beings does require a sacrifice. We’ve even given up a second income so that I can home school ours (while still paying to build big, pretty, new schools for my neighbors who take the EITC — aaaaargh!). Parents who actually do the job of parenting are like Kipling’s ‘Famous Men’:
But that’s my business, not my neighbor’s, and NOT UNCLE SAM’S!
I don’t claim to be so high-minded and pure-souled as to not take every stinking deduction and exemption I can find when I prepare our ‘joint’ return — Uncle Sam gets plenty out of us, even after all that! — but I loathe the system that forces me to go through all that mess.
So I’ll add my voice to the chorus:
FAIRTAX! FAIRTAX! FAIRTAX!
Nobody gets punished. Everybody gets to reap the rewards of their own labor.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pmESTIt just makes the most sense.
Flat tax better.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:57 pmESTAn income tax credit (is a tax credit) that directly reduces the amount of income tax paid by offsetting other income tax liabilities
$20 dollars is needed to pay for a bridge.
Five people each drive their car own cars through a tollbooth — those five pay ONLY $10 because they have the same last name.
One person pays the other $10 becuse that’s how much is needed, otherwise, no bridge.
Simplistic, yes, but somebody has to pay to keep that damn bridge open so we can all get to work.
I think that’s why people see the tax credit as subsidizing children.
definition at http://www.bwfa.com/glossary/t.asp
April 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pmESTAnywyn, some tax credits are refundable, which means you get the tax credit in cash even if your federal income tax liability was zero. Most notorious of these is the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Fair Tax Supporters, I’d be your biggest supporter, IF the Fair Tax was a workable plan. It is NOT. Neal Boortz is possibly the best talk show guy on the radio, but he’s an economic idiot. He made a trillion dollar double-counting error in his first book, and no one–not Linder, not American for Fair Taxation, not the book’s editors–caught it.
Get the Wall Street Journal editorial board on the bandwagon, then maybe we’ll talk.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:03 pmESTHeather:
That’s what it may cost for the bridge, but we try not to let politicians get away with setting how much they want the federal government to rake in and then raise taxes accordingly, certainly not on one major group. Oregon just defeated a tax hike on cigarettes for that reason. Your taxes do not go up to meet the federal budget when the government charges me less tax for having a child.
Of course the government then just goes into debt, but they’d do that anyway and it’s not what we’re discussing.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:03 pmESTCarbo, I am absolutely in sympathy with being against the tax system paying out money to people who had zero tax liability. I’ve been confining my discussion to the child tax credit and dependent deductions, which, so far as I know (and I could be wrong) do not pay money directly if your deductions/credits are more than your liability … I could be dead wrong about that, which would then change the discussion somewhat. That indeed is other people subsidizing other people’s children.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:07 pmESTHeather, those people with the same last names are no longer dependent. The better analogy is car-pooling, two cars, 5-in one, 1 in the next, each car pays 10 bucks. Between this bridge and the next bridge the kids buy cars themselves, to help build the next bridge, and the 6 of you now pay $3.00 each.
(Edit)
However if the person in the first car hadn’t been carpooling, hadn’t dropped off those dependants, you each would have paid $10.00 at the second bridge too.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:07 pmESTAnwyn,
I get that taxes shouldn’t necessarily fluctuate.
That’s why I didn’t say renovate the bridge.
I just said keep it open.
There just has to be a certain amount required for the government to function, correct? If everyone’s not paying the same based on an income bracket alone, then someone’s gettin’ subsidized.
BTW — I have three credits of my own, one in college.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pmESTWhich I think is the whole point of these comments. People don’t like being held accountable for actions they weren’t involved in. And like I said, I could care less about money being returned that should never have been taxed in the first place. I just think those of us who don’t have children are not overly fond of paying tons of taxes where our money is then used to subsidize or finance somebody else’s kids. If I want to help out with my niece’s schooling, or anything else, I will. But I don’t want my money spent on people I don’t know just because they have kids. Yes, I’m a cold-hearted bitch, but I’ve made peace with myself.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:12 pmESTWell, my post, even with attempted repost, is still in moderation. The basic point is that, at least as far as the deduction goes, what we are talking about is merely money not being taken. The system is unfair to all of us. Some of us it is unfair to less, some more, and those who get the deduction are merely luckier.
I understand the jealousy, but you are complaining because others aren’t as screwed as you are. If the 5:44 post ever makes it through, it says it more clearly.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:16 pmESTChris_RC,
There are four of us in my family driving right now, three could be considered dependents, so I guess I should have used my family in my analogy — four drivers and one rider all paying $10.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pmESTSix years from now, there will be five drivers each paying $10 (god willing)
For those of us without kids, we should not be expected to finance the raising of somebody else’s rugrats unless we choose to
It depends on how it is done. Your property taxes should help pay for public schools. In theory that will provide more people with a good education and that will benefit you in the long run.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:44 pmESTGiven the fact that school was a complete waste of time back in the ’90s and according to my father, who still has kids in the same schools, is worse now than it was then, the words “good education” and “public schools” are definitely not synonymous. In any case, if I absolutely have to contribute to somebody’s school despite the fact I don’t have children and never will, I should at least get to choose. It is an investment and at this point I can honestly say I’m not impressed with the returns the public education sector is generating.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:11 pmESTAnwyn,
Really? It removes the issue of brackets, but how does it prevent the congressional tweak-fest that has produced the current tax code? Wouldn’t the endless games of punishment and reward continue?
Rachel,
There is actually one way to get a deduction for dog food — make ‘em your business! We’re actually considering filing as a Farm — the dogs are here to work the sheep, so . . . Farm expense, w00t!
(Anwyn — Would a flat tax prevent special, separate rules like that?????)
hM,
April 24th, 2008 at 9:13 pmESTLooks like we’re in agreement — no?
felicity, I’d say that’s a fair assessment.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:15 pmESTBTW, Rachl, where is the AI goodness I’ve come to know and love? Seriously, your posts are the only way I can justify my own AI watching habit. I have to know what you’re talking about, after all.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:17 pmESTHello Rachel:
Long time lurker here, and I mean looong time…I used to read (and love) your stuff during your first blogging go-around, and was thrilled when you came back. BTW - love the profanity; it warms the cockles of my heart to know there are other women out there who can curse like a sailor, like me.
On to your post: I got my tubes tied when I was 27 - I knew very early on that kids were not for me. However, I feel so damn lucky to have figured this out early on. I firmly believe that on top of being pretty financially savvy and frugal, it is the MAIN reason I don’t have major financial worries keeping me up at night! I know plenty of hard working, practical, educated parents via my job in a law firm, and the endless stress and worry about this or that is constantly wafting off of them - it wears me out simply to listen to them! My childfree status allows me to live a much simpler, laid back life. So, you parents can have your tax breaks - the advantages of being w/out children, IMHO, so far outweigh any tax benefit that I simply can’t be bothered with the issue. After all, you are already paying for things you don’t use - we all are!
One more thing: I really wish people would stop slamming the No Money Down way of buying a home, as I am living proof it can be done, and done wisely. In many hot RE markets, you simply CANNOT save cash for a down payment FASTER than housing prices are rising. I got an 80% traditional fixed mortgage, and a 20% HELOC - WHICH I PAID OFF IN 4 YEARS!
I think of it as a “down payment after the fact”. HOWEVER, you MUST buy cheap enough in order to keep reasonable cash flow - THAT is where people fuck up!!!!
April 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pmESTI have waded through almost all these comments and even though a few have come down on the side of the angels, I am just amazed that no one seems to understand what a childless world will look like. (OK someone made a very good comment about Japan.)
We don’t have tax breaks for families because it costs a lot to raise children, we have them to encourage couples to have children. We don’t encourage child-bearing in order to ensure a steady stream of income for the government, though that is a by-product of having enough citizens who need services that are better handled by government. No, the tax code recognizes the fact there can be no nation without people; workers of every conceivable sort, from the bluest of the blue collar to the whitest of the white collar.
Who will be the farmers– you know, those people who grow our food? The electricians? The plumbers? The teachers? The doctors? I will give you a hint. In this country, his name may well be Manuelo. In Europe it will likely be Achmed. What do those kinds of huge demographic changes mean to our culture? Our economy? Our national psyche (for lack of a better word to call it)?
France, Italy, Germany, Britain (I believe)and many others are dying out literally. They are not replacing themselves. That is why immigration has become a huge issue. There are whole towns in Germany (mostly the former DDR) that have reverted to forest because the populations have died off.
I read quite recently that the current generation of children in Italy has no lateral relatives. Think about that. No sisters and brothers; no cousins. France finally woke up a year or two ago and is paying big bounties to women to have a second child… too little, too late, I am afraid.
Children are the future. No children, no future. It is really as simple as that.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:42 pmESThM,
Had me scratching my wooden head for a sec! For some reason, I just can’t read ‘AI’ without thinking first of something completely different . . . . involving livestock and liquid nitrogen tanks.
(Maybe my household should try watching telly once and a while, just for the cultural literacy aspect, before we get too hopelessly weird. Nah, too late!)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pmESTChester Sims:
I know that. I’m just getting tired of all the ignorant parent-bashing in this thread.
I was and still am. It’s the single greatest investment I’ve ever made. I waited until I could afford it, but wish that I had them when I was younger - easier to keep up with them.
Fair enough. But if you and other childless people in this thread insist on bashing parenthood, then my response is you might want to consider growing the fuck up and stop acting like a selfish whiny brat because the mean old guvmint doesn’t play fair. Incidentally, that will likely happen if you become a parent. For some people it’s the only way it can happen.
What I know that you don’t, among other things, is why my parents were happy to have me in spite of the occasional episodes of hell I put them through. So please, feel free to bask in self-centered glory of your childlessness, but all you’ll get from me is pity.
Have you ever daydreamed about what you’d do differently in your life if you could go back and start over again? When you have kids, you realize that you wouldn’t change anything, even if you could - you couldn’t bear to risk erasing their existence.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:31 pmESTI’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the thought people would only have children because they get a tax deduction, tax credit or any reason other than the fact of personal choice to nurture and care for another human being. I don’t recall basing my decision to have children for any other reason than personal emotional investment & reward in creating a lifelong relationship with awesome, unique human beings. Why would the govt think enticing me to procreate even be a logical motivating factor for securing a future tax base? I have no problem with getting my hard earned money back for whatever the reason. However, I don’t think the fact that I have children entitles me to get my money back any more than Rachel. Knowing Rachel the way I do I’m sure she would use her money in an array of venues which would benefit humanity and communities in a more productive manner than the govt would or could because the govt does not have a personal/emotional investment in anything. I may be an eternal optomist but I like to think the majority of our nation would do the same and I think statistics back that assumption where we see facts regarding the largest contributors to charitable organizations are typically the lower tier on the income scale. I think the govt needs to stay focused on its responsibilities for infrastructure, military defense & foreign relations and leave the social responsibilities to real people who have the capacity to care. I’m sure we would step up to the plate since most of us have communicated we want to exercise our right to fulfill our personal responsibilities but we are being held back by the bureaucracy of the govt.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:21 pmESTRachel,
NO tax is “fair”. All taxes are contributions to the common good collected at gunpoint. That isn’t to say that I think any system that had no taxes would work. Libertarians have a touching faith in human nature that I totally lack.
However, the State (on whatever level) is grossly over-funded. this leads it to do all kinds of things that are none of its goddamned business, most of them badly. Would I like my own taxes to be lower? Certainly! That said, I tend to view ANY tax break for ANYBODY that pays taxes (tax rebates to non-taxpayers are something else again) as a Good Thing.
Think of it this way; The way the government is, doing away with the tax break for parents won’t lower YOUR taxes on penny, it will just be more money going to Government drones. On the whole I would rather taxpaying parents got that money; they are less likely to do something with it that makes my life worse than is the government.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:44 amESTfelicity, lol. It took me a moment to figure out what you mean re: AI (I thought artificial intelligence but then it occurred to me that livestock has nothing to do with that). And I’m going to take a very wild guess and say you must either be from the British Isles or have spent a lot of time there. Just spitballing, here:)
Jay,
I personally am glad that you have found such fulfillment in having and raising kids. Some of us just aren’t cut out for it. And I know that you’ll probably say what 99.9% of people with kids say: “It’s different when it’s your own kids.” Fair enough, I believe that. Everybody on these comments will give you different reasons as to why they do, or do not, have children.
My personal reasons are mostly selfish and I will be the first to admit it. First, I have very expensive hobbies (video games, computers, electronics in general, movies, and books - because I like to own books, not just borrow them). And being as it is that those hobbies are as expensive as they are, I’m not about to put all my stuff at risk of destruction, which is something that kids are very good at. I was never the type of kid to trash things, especially if they aren’t mine, but none of my brothers and sisters seem to share that particular quirk. I really don’t know how my dad can stand dealing with the constant battery of his electronics by kids who refuse to be responsible.
Second, I am what you would call a lone wolf. My personal time is very important to me and I demand a lot of it. Given the chance I will stay in my room playing video games, watching movies, reading books, or surfing the net and be perfectly content with my life. Every once in a while I want to hang out with a friend, but mostly I’d rather kick back by myself. I know for a fact that kids don’t allow you that luxury (I’m the oldest in a family of eight kids). My poor dad never seems to get any time to himself.
Third, I have what you could call an explosive temper. I can hold the anger in, but only for so long. Seriously, I was put in charge of teaching pre-school age children at church, which was fine when they were well-behaved. Then one day a new kid was there and he was impossible to deal with. If it hadn’t been for the fact that he was not my kid I probably would have killed the little bastard. I have an extremely low tolerance for bad behavior, and almost no patience when it seems like I’ve explained something very clearly but the kids still don’t get it. I can be around them for a short amount of time, but the questions questions questions would drive me to either kill them or myself, possibly both if I had my own.
Fourth, my family has severe depression and chemical imbalance issues. Having kids in my family and hoping they don’t end up with some kind of emotional problem would be exactly the same as playing Russian roulette with semi-automatic. I have neither the desire to deal with the havoc that wreaks or the will to unleash it upon the rest of the world.
Yes, I’ve said “I” a lot and I know it comes across as incredibly selfish. But I really think there would be a lot less problems with children in this world if people actually stopped and thought about having a kid. If they asked themselves if they wanted the kid because they really want to make that commitment to family, or if it’s just because that’s what you do when you grow up and get married. So yes, I’m a selfish bitch. But aren’t you glad that I’ve taken the time to realize that about myself before polluting the world with kids that know they are resented? (And trust me, if a kid is resented or unwanted they will know. I know this from very personal and painful experience).
April 25th, 2008 at 1:24 amESTMohammed on a falafel! Lots of comments on this one.
Taxes inherently blow. They’re necessary, but they blow.
I like the FairTax idea for one simple reason: whenever you choose to tax one big thing (like income), you create a massive incentive to avoid the tax. And you make it relativly easy to do so, because there’s only one payment to avoid.
A national sales tax is better because it taxes every transaction; that’s much harder to avoid because it’s not concentrated in any one place. It’s fair because everybody pays. It gets politics out of tax policy because the only thing left to argue about is the tax rate, not who pays it.
And a sales tax is highly visible, which would make the general public more aware of what they’re paying and hence more opposed to tax hikes.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:54 amESTI am proud to be able to pay tax.
The problem lies in how much and where does it go.
I prefer freedom, bullets and bridges. If you were or are in the military, please remember how much time and effort on everybody’s part a simple inspection took/takes.
Our military needs to be productive stateside.
The successful armies in history built shit. When the American military lays around and “does nothing” anywhere in the world, it could do better for its country by building roads, sewers, power, etc. The Roman soldiers did. These days, the media easily makes us look like a bunch of idiots, pansies & crybabies.
Are we? Whining about paying tax is one thing. Justifying paying tax is another.
We need the group. The group needs us.
But, fuck, come on! Strike while the iron is hot! Let’s plant Old Glory over there and name it “East Virginia”.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:28 amESTOk, I want that on a T-shirt.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:49 amESTThe line between what we should pay for as a society and what we shouldn’t is a good and proper argument. It is the essence of politics, and the traditional point of difference between liberal and conservative.
There are things we must do collectively because we cannot do them alone. National defense. Police. Fire. Roads. Liberals would add a long list of other things like National Child Care, having us all put our children in liberal indoctrination camps from 3 months on. This line of argument can go on and on and on, with pacifists arguing they shouldn’t have to pay for national defense.
From my point of view encouraging people in this country to have children through what’s really a fairly minimal tax break is good social policy. We need future workers and - more importantly - we need to nurture our culture of freedom and liberty. We’re either going to raise kids to be workers or we’re going to import workers.
(Which, oddly enough, is the fundamental point of the article Heather links above, which is a self described “anti mass immigration” website.)
I love this country. One of the most alarming things the last several years have demonstrated to me is how much some people in other countries hate, loathe, revile and detest the USA.
There are things about our culture I don’t like - like American Idol (heh), but if we want American style liberal democracy to survive then we better be prepared to propagate and nurture it. People that are raising the next generation of Americans heroes that will continue the work of building and defending this country (not to mention drink the beer and watch the football games - if we’re to continue to have such things) deserve our thanks and support.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:36 amESTWebspinner.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:19 amESTThank-you!!
I could not undersatnd why that comment had not yet been brought up.
Having kids ain’t no money-making proposition.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:04 amESTI responded in long form on my blog but my short answer is:
In order for society to survive we need stable, solvent people to reproduce and since many people of that description are choosing not to have children, we need to provide incentives.
The problem with the current system is that it rewards bad actors for having children while ignoring those people we actually WANT to have children.
So, current system - shit. Need a system - yes.
Like I said, better explanation at my blog.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:33 amESTNo, it is not fair, but what the hell, I got 6 tax deduction and compared to what I make, don’t pay any income tax. In fact, a couple of years I was going through a hard time, I got back more than I paid. I hope it don’t change till all rug rats are gone.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:50 amESTWhat they all said, above me. I can’t read it all because I have four kids. So you can guess my opinion on tax breaks for those of us with kids.
There is no tax break that even begins to help parents with the enormous cost of raising children. Anyone with a pulse understands the economic benefit of children, particularly children of taxpayers. So we parents are subsidizing those of you without kids. I don’t mind, but I’d like to see a bigger tax break for those of us who support you childless ones.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:51 amESTAll of you childless people owe me and all others who have kids. Big. Time.
Not only will our children be subsidizing our golden years, but your golden years as well.
There is no pot of money holding your Social Security tax remittances. Social Security is a pay-as-you go system. Without a generation following you, no social security.
While I don’t recommend reliance on Social Security as your sole source of retirement income, please think of us child-rearing folks kindly when you begin receiving it.
Better yet, compensate us directly by sending money in care of Rachl Lukis
April 25th, 2008 at 9:25 amESTBy the way, for those of you who commented that my husband’s co-worker was holding out more on his check, you are wrong. He withholds about the same as my husband because thier paychecks are almost identical. The reason he gets so much back is because of the child credit he gets at the end of the year, which has nothing to do with what he is withholding.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:28 amEST[Comment deleted by me (Rachel) and here's why: you can say all you want about your opinion and you can even be a little pissy about it, and you can even make great points that I disagree with, and I'll let your comment stand.
But if you are compelled to end your comment with a line calling me a "whiner" and then telling me and all other childless people to "shut the fuck up", then you just blew it, pal. My post that started this whole debate wasn't hostile or whiny and you fucking know it. I asked a question and wanted to know what other people think. Pretty simple.
It's pretty cute that this commenter thought he'd get away with telling me, on my OWN FUCKING BLOG THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO READ, to shut the fuck up. Here's a better idea: YOU shut the fuck up. YOU go start your own blog and tell everyone you disagree with to shut the fuck up. I may come there, and I may comment and tell you where I disagree, but I promise you I won't tell you to shut the fuck up any more than I would walk into your house and tell you to shut the fuck up.
God, I hate it when people have to be dickheads for no good reason. I really fucking hate it.
Love, Rachel]
April 25th, 2008 at 10:04 amESTHeather, I know you were being ironic here but in fact, what you said is true.
Those of us (yes, including me) who are childless are essentially “free riders.” We get to enjoy the benefits of living in a vital and growing society but we don’t pay for it.
As for the issue of “paying for something I don’t agree with” or some such, that a few of you have mentioned: Grow up. That’s just the way it is, you do it, I do it, everyone does it. Don’t like it? Write your congressman. Run for office. Write an angry post on a blog.
The notion that you should only have to pay for those things that you “agree with” is laughably childish. We all pay for things we don’t agree with whether it’s B1 bombers or welfare mothers.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:05 amESTLee, If you get a bunch of money from the govt when you file your taxes, it means you haven’t set up your deductions properly. It means that you are allowing the govt to have and use your money all year - money that you could be earning interest on in a 401K (for example) or a child’s college fund.
I am assuming that, since he is getting children deductions, he is paying less tax than you. But still, if he gets a large check back, he is content to let the govt keep and use his money all year.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:12 amESTFunny that it hasn’t been overcome by events, but my post at 5:44PM, yesterday, describing my opinion is now past moderation. Thanks for unlocking it Rachel, do you have any idea what set off the alerts?
[I wish I did, Chris! Stupid moderation filter, I honestly do not know why it snags certain comments. I haven't been checking the moderation queue for the last 24 hours because I've been really sick. Sorry about that, I hope it doesn't happen again. - Rachel]
April 25th, 2008 at 10:43 amESTJesus Christ. Now I know what to post about if I want everyone to completely lose their shit and take things way more personally than they should.
For all of you who keep saying this whole thread has an “anti-kid/anti-parent” tone, I have to ask you: re you reading ALL the comments? Good lord! I’m tempted to make a spreadsheet to compare the “anti-kid” posts to the “anti-childless-people” posts. How about Jay?:
Condescending much? Trust me, we know we don’t know, we’re fine with that, and we didn’t say we did know. But more importantly, that “knowing” of the love of a child or whatever has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE.
I simply wanted to hear informed opinions about the rightness or wrongness of a tax deduction for child dependents. I got some of those opinions, and I am now more informed. But good god, I had no intention of watching this devolve into a thread about just precisely how “selfish” it is of me to choose not to have children.
And people keep saying shit about Social Security, which your children will pay into, thus eventually benefitting childless people. Did I miss the memo that said SS will actually still be around and useful by the time I’m old enough to get it? I have ZERO expectation of ever receiving a dime that way, which is why I’m working my childless ass off to save for MYSELF.
Now can everyone please be nice again? Thx bai.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:51 amESTAnd I hope you feel very much better. It sucks that you’re sick.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:57 amESTmy goodness, I sure note a tone of anger towards those of us who have decided to (or, in some cases been forced to) remain childless. Let’s see - what is it liberals do? Oh yeah, define “free speech” and “hate” and anything else that might invite discussion instead of closing it off.
Hate kids? Not me … I despise worthless parents who inflict their mannerless brats (parents fault) on us. Guilty as charged. I am angry that few businesses have the guts to declare themselves Adults Only so that we have a place of refuge from your (collect not personal) inability to raise your kids as respectful members of society. I dislike flying or any other form of public travel because of parent that raised their kids to feel that private space is evil, and that we all enjoy screaming, whining, and puking. I like kids with manners … although I’m afraid to look at them, since that will immediately brank me a child molestor. yes indeed, children are a joy and a boon to society.
Sorry … but I can’t accept the argument that the deductions and credits are a way of encouraging future tax payers.
First off … there is no guarantee that any child will be become a taxpayer instead of continuing to be a dependant.
Secondly, if that were actually the case, there would be no discussions about abortion, it would be illegal.
Third, especially in this day and age, having children is a choice. And if you make a choice to buy and drive a Rolls instead of a VW … knowing it will cost you more than the retail price of the VW each year to maintain the Rolls … that is your choice and your commitment.
Society won’t continue to exist unless I pay taxes to support your children? Give me a break! Back before the government got involved in all these fascist policies … it was YOUR job to educate … or to pay to educate your children. Now it’s mine? To make sure that ebonics is mainstreamed and your kids are taught to browbeat you into recycling? Whoopee-shit. Sorry, I don’t see it. If I am supposed to share the responsibility to educate your spawn — note the key word there –> your … then why am I not allowed a voice? As a non-parent, when I voice an opinion on policies and matters at local schools, or state schools, I’m asked to STFU … because it’s no concern of mine. Make up your damned minds. At what point, exactly, does my responsibility for YOUR choice end?
We’ll use the low income examples many mentioned:
I get to subsidize the birth
I get to sudsidize the food and clothing
I get to subsidize the education
I get to subsidize the birth of the next generation when the peer pressure overcomes the place-prophylactic-on-cucumber training (loop new dependant back to top)
I get to subsidize the continuing education
I get to subsidize the job training
If … we get “lucky” and we’ve been subsiding a loser to this point … then
I get to pay for the justice system to process and house said “citizen”
I get to subsidize the “return to society” efforts.
And during all this, I have been saving for my retirement, instead of preparing to depend on society or other individuals during my old age. So, my benefit from society for YOUR choice is ….. ??
I’m glad you feel fulfilled by being a parent. Good for you. I feel fulfilled not being a parent. A herd of horses, a dog, some cats, and a dependant wife fulfill me. Without any fanfare, or deductions, or whining. They’re all my choices. And none of them do or will cost you a penny. In taxes or anything else.
I’m not anti-children, I pro-personal-responsibility. I’m the product of immigrants who started a new life with nothing … not even recognition of their previous occupations. That turned my dad - an engineer in Germany - into an alcoholic. We rented, never owned, and seldom lived in a house more than a year as we’d be evicted when my mother had to choose between food and rent. (I don’t blame the landlords - most was damned understanding). We’ve come a long way from there … I wouldn’t want to go back … but I’ve worked long and hard - by myself with no help from your children, or parent, or government quotas. I made the choice, in my 20’s, not to have children (although I now have grandchildren by marriage) because I did not want to be responsible for putting my offspring into the society I saw developing. Haven’t regretted that decision … in fact, I now think I was clairvoynt … although my worst fears never included Obama and Clinton.
As far as the tax rate … mark me an advocate of the FairTax. Sorry Carbo … don’t have a clue what you’re talking about … but then I stopped reading anything Krugman wrote when I realized he’s as much an economist as I am a Martian. I like the FairTax for two reasons. It would eliminate fully half of the current government “work” force, especially those IRS clowns. And it would be a fair, voluntary tax. It would sure have stopped me from having 4 motorcycles in my garage when I can only drive one at a time … LOL. Flat tax … pfffft … leaves the IRS in place. I want a plan that doesn’t allow the government to discriminate against me (or you), and doesn’t allow those fascists to play social engineers.
Heh! Just went to grab a coffee, and there’s sign-up sheets for fund-raising for school baseball, band, and boy scouts (I’ll probably support the Boy Scout thing).
April 25th, 2008 at 11:11 amESTA few people have mentioned the preservation-of-American-culture reason to encourage people to have children, but nobody has mentioned the national defense aspect. The government needs people to have children so it can have soldiers. In ancient Rome, women were given extra rights (such as inheritance and property ownership) only if they had three or more children for precisely this reason. Fewer children means fewer potential soldiers, so by subsidizing childrearing you’re really just paying for an extra-large reserve army, activatable by the draft in times of war.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:15 amESTDaveW,
Even if the tax break were an incentive (and I can join the chorus of those who assure you it is not!), since when is that the proper role of the Federal Government? I don’t want the government offering tax incentives for reproduction — or any other activity, for that matter — first, because social engineering is not the business of government, and second, because monetary compensation is a really horrible reason to reproduce!
I personally have infinitely more respect for those “people we actually WANT to have children” who have seriously considered the matter and chosen not to reproduce, than I can possibly ever muster for those, even those who can afford to provide for their children, who reproduce for any of a host of bad reasons, or, worst of all, without giving it any thought at all.
Rachel — You Get Well Soon. Do it NOW. (and for you, I just changed my post to read ‘provide for their children’ instead of ‘their spawn’ — civility, I haz it!)
April 25th, 2008 at 11:17 amESTIf by “role of the federal government” you are referring to Constitutional authority, then this definitely is within the role of the govt.
Well to a certain extent everything the government does is a form of social engineering. Laws against murder, theft, and so on are just as much about socially conditioning people against committing those acts as they are about punishing offenders.
Giving people tax breaks for having children is not really “encouraging” them to have children, IMO. It’s more like making it easier to afford children.
Now giving someone welfare for having children, THAT is encouraging them.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:35 amESTThis has been an interesting debate to follow. I even went so far as to crack an old law school book to see if I could find the thought process behind the original exemption for dependents. Sorry, no luck.
I really don’t believe that the exemption is any kind of incentive. People either want to have children, or they don’t.
The main point of my post was to address the issue of property taxes and schools. First, don’t lump all public schools together as “sucking.” Some of us take great pride in our school systems and became active in an effort to change what we perceived to be wrong.
Property taxes are not a fair way to pay for public education, but as most of the commenters have pointed out, taxes, at least on some level are inherently unfair. However, I know that most, if not all, states have a provision in their constitutions which require the state to provide a free, quality education. To me, this is something that must be done collectively, rather than individually…like defense.
We face the same argument every time there is a levy on the ballot. Why should I have to pay when I don’t have kids, or my kids are already out of school? Because it is part of living in a society. We all sacrifice in different ways, but we all sacrifice.
I really could care less about the exemption even though I have two children, but I’m not a rabid anti-tax guy either. I have always stuck to my simplistic and childish view that as long as I’m paying taxes, I must be making money, which is good.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:39 amESTSocial Security will still be around in the future–it’s how much it will pay in benefits that’s questionable. Worry more about Medicare. Remember that those other people’s kids will be picking your nursing home…and paying for it. Or not–the future belongs to those who show up.
Among other things, you pay property taxes for schools so that the kiddies are in school and not breaking into your house during the day while you’re at work. And so that they’re more likely to be working when they get out of school, instead of breaking into your house.
Anyone who thinks that the tax breaks one gets for kids comes remotely close to covering the cost of raising said kids, even for the welfare poor, is deluding themselves.
Each to their own–I have no problem with the childless. But in a democratic society, those inclined to having kids are always going to outnumber and outvote those not inclined, and that’s just the way it works. You don’t have to like it, but reality is what it is.
Oh, and what Matt said about public schools. Many of them do not suck at all, some are downright excellent. If your local public schools suck and you don’t like it, well, local schools are LOCALLY GOVERNED, and you can make more difference than you might think at the local level. If your local public schools suck and you’re not doing anything about it, don’t blame anyone but your own community. Which includes, well, YOU.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:40 amESTTHANK you.
I am so sick and tired of people blaming everything but the people in charge of the schools for why so many schools stink out loud. It’s not lack of funding, it’s not bad teachers, it’s not a racist grading system. It’s the fucking school boards.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:47 amESTIt’s a good policy; even Fair Tax recognizes exemptions for family size. Tax is levied on wealth creation, which is distinct from income. Any income that is not spent directly on sustenance is considered wealth, and is subject to tax. If the mere sustenance costs for my family are equal to household income (usually called “poverty line”), then I create no wealth. If my sustenance costs are greater than my income, then I’m lazy, stupid, or about to die. This case is where Welfare steps in, and is the only case that can truly be called a “subsidy” (taking money you didn’t generate). Despite the federal tax breaks and refundable credits, families that are raising children are still by and large net taxpayers, unless they’re collecting government aid (all of which should cease, immediately).
I provide for my wife and kids just fine on a single income, and I planned my education and career so we could live this way. We are comfortably above the break-even point (”poverty line”), and quite happy paying taxes on our created wealth, however marginal it may be at the present.
In short, no tax payer is subsidizing my family, and it’s an error to think otherwise. In addition to the taxes I do pay, I also give a voluntary contribution of ALL of my discretionary time and resources to raising kids. That it’s voluntary doesn’t negate my duty to provide for the community by replacing myself, my wife, and at least one of you non-breeders
Paying tax on created wealth is not unfair. Those who expand the economy for their own benefit bear a directly-proportional amount of responsibility for maintaining the systems that support the economy.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:51 amESTI’m late to this party, but I’m surprised that no one has mentioned positive externalities. It’s kinda been alluded to, but everyone seems to dance around it in terms of “Social Security” and “future taxation.”
That’s not the real reason. Someone above mentioned future economic growth, which is closer to the real reason why you should care, Ms. Lucas. I imagine you’re saving for retirement, or at least hedging against future misfortune.
That money is being tucked away in savings/investments that are used to finance future growth. That growth is realized by my crumb-muncher. You need young workers to take those investments in capital and turn them into real productivity in the future.
Or, to be more blunt about it: Someone’s going to have to wipe your ass in the nursing home. My kid just might be the one doing it. At the very least, some portion of his earnings will be funding it. As your productivity declines with age, you’ll be relying on deferred consumption (i.e. savings) to fund your lifestyle. That deferred consumption is not realized unless there’s a live human being willing to create the goods and services (especially services) that you’ll need. And it has nothing to do with taxes. Even if your lifestyle is completely funded by your own means (and I applaud the culture of self-reliance you’ve tapped into, and want my son to be part of it) you need some workers to make use of the funds you’ve set aside in savings/investment.
In other words, it’s in your best economic interest for me to have children, regardless of how squishy I feel about him. (And trust me, he’s really cute.) You benefit from the sleepless nights and diaper changing that I endure. The child deduction is a way to help balance that out, and encourage people to create the next generation of the productive.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pmESTmightysamurai,
Authority to levy taxes? Yes. To manipulate behavior through manipulation of the tax code? Emphatically, NO!
As for “everything the government does:”
From Federalist Paper no.41:
I’m sorry, but I don’t see “socially conditioning people” in that list of the Founders’ priorities. In my reading, the purpose of your “Laws against murder, theft, and so on” is to assure the peace, and thereby the happiness, of the people — not to train them for their own good!
Also, please recall that I was responding to DaveW’s notion of ‘incentives’. At the very great risk of engaging in hyperbole, wouldn’t such reasoning set one on the primrose path to, oh, say, eugenics? As one who regularly ‘cuts’ inferior ram lambs, and recently sent two ‘uncut’ rams to the butcher when they flunked their progeny testing, I cringe at the application of breeder criteria to humans. Scoff if you like, but it’s a concept not foreign to the progressive movement!
April 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pmESTRachel,
Regarding your comment about SS, I didn’t get that memo either. You point out, indirectly, the dilemma of a system that was, for so many years, supported by a base of wage earners that exceeded the benefit receivers.
That differential enabled Congress, over time, to deliver a multitude of benefits other than an old age pension, as well as support longer life spans in retirement. People are collecting retirement benefits over their lifetimes that vastly exceed what they contributed while working.
That wage earner and benefit receiver differential is shrinking, leading you to rightly consider that it may be impossible for you to collect any benefits from SS.
Is the answer to the problem having lots more kids? Naaah! Does anybody really owe me for having kids? Nah, nah, nah! Writing irony isn’t my strong suit. Still, if you do get a check from the SSA 26 years from now…
April 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pmESTThe death tax is very wrong as well. In a lot of these comments people are assuming that kids will pay taxes. When I was I living in N.Y.C., I learned that many low income mothers were having more kids, so their welfare check would get fatter. A lot of kids are going to be a drain on our economy (jail, drug programs, legal system, welfare and the biggie medical). I’m for a flat tax, which would be great for incentive to earn more.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:44 pmESTPete in Midland said it brilliantly. I am willing to bet that most of us who have chosen not to have kids have done so for the same exact reasons. I like kids just fine. What I HATE is the society in which they are raised. If I could have a child that I knew was going to live in a society of people who teach their kids core values like honesty, hard work, accountability, trust, manners and respect then sure, maybe I’d actually want one. Instead, I live in a society that blames everyone else for the problems their personal choices created. Most people are offended if someone addresses him or her as ma’am or sir because that might mean we are “old” and holy FUCK are people sensitive to that (not sure why though). It seems to be perfectly acceptable for children to call his or her teacher “Miss” or “Mister” instead of “Mr. Smith” or “Miss Smith.” Society is led into believing if their kids don’t have a college degrees they are worthless in our work force. Wanna know why all of our jobs get outsourced? Because the work force today is lazy and they expect to make a million dollars for doing NOTHING. People constantly bitch about how bad healthcare is. Wait and see how bad it will be in 10-15 years when we have no doctors. Why? Because society caters to the idea that you don’t have to work hard for anything anymore and there is NO incentive for kids to go to medical school. Why should they when they can work at some corporation who will promote them to a manager in 6.4 seconds? You all talk a lot about education here. Education in America is a JOKE. But I don’t blame the schools or the teachers. I blame the parents. You send a rude, lazy, disrepctful kid to school and your kid’s teacher CAN’T teach. Those teachers are spending the day disciplining your kids and trying to rectify your failures as parents! And even when they TRY to discipline your kid, they can’t because you start threatening to have their jobs if they don’t stop. My friend Kate is a teacher and god FORBID she gives a kid a B, the parent is on the phone, not asking what they can do to help their child get an A, but rather, to blame the teacher because their kid didn’t. It ALL goes back to taking responsibility for one’s actions. You must teach children failure. You must teach children they can’t always get what they want. So yes, having a child in today’s liberal, “fuck the rules” world….SCARY. Tax breaks have absolutely NO bearing on my decision and it’s ridiculous to engage in any conversation that assumes anyone would base such a major life choice on getting a tax break.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pmESTWhy should my two kids go to work to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits to selfish SOBs who didn’t bother to raise a couple of taxpayers? You should be able to retire quite nicely on the money you DIDN’T spend raising children. What? Didn’t save any? Too bad for you sez I.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pmESTRachel, just want to say here that I respect your decision not to have kids. Those of us who do have kids are passionately in love with them, we can’t imagine not having kids, we want to share the joys and hassles of parenting like a heroin addict wants to share a needle.
So forgive me if I sound like I’m not accepting of your choice, for that is not my intention. Ever.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pmESTTracey -
I totally get where you’re coming from. My oldest was 18 months old when 9/11 hit and I spent a lot of time wondering what kind of world I had brought this child into.
I have since had two more children. I’m trying my best to raise hard working, responsible, honest people. People who, in the future, aren’t going to let the assholes of the world completely take over without a fight.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pmESTI don’t see anything unconstitutional about it. The Fed. Govt. has the power to raise or lower taxes as they see fit. The fact that you or I don’t personally approve of how they structure this system does not make it unconstitutional.
The Federalist Papers are a nice guide to the proper role of government, but they don’t have any bearing on the Constitutionality of a certain policy.
I agree with you in principle. The govt. should generally avoid so-called “social engineering”. But I also believe that any excuse to lower taxes on anybody is a good excuse. Complaining that Group X get tax breaks but the rest of us don’t will only cause the govt. to remove tax breaks from everyone in order to be “fair”.
Check again:
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States (i.e., conditioning the individual states and the people therein to deal fairly and justly with each other)
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts (i.e., conditioning the states against those “injurious acts”)
All laws inherently condition people towards or against certain actions. For example, tariffs (which the Founding Fathers had no problem with so long as they were reasonable) condition people to buy domestic products rather than foreign ones.
They are one and the same. Laws aren’t just designed to punish the guilty and ensure the peace. They also condition us to be good citizens.
Very possibly. I could easily see how offering “incentives to procreate” could lead either to eugenics (if people with “good genes” are encouraged and the rest are discouraged) or to the opposite, where the lazy and the unmotivated are encouraged to breed and pass on their lazy and unmotivated genes. A sort of “anti-eugenics” you might say.
However, I don’t see this as an “incentive” to procreate, per se. Rather, I see it more as “lessening a burden” so that people who want to have children but otherwise couldn’t afford it can do so. It doesn’t motivate one towards having children. People are motivated to do that all by themselves. What it does is remove a financial barrier to having children by letting people keep more of their own hard-earned money.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pmESTFelicity,
Re your 11:17am (and now again I see at 12:34), that isn’t me you’re quoting.
However, re your point that social engineering isn’t the business of the federal government, I’d tend to agree with you.
That doesn’t change the fact that the tax code has been and is being used to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. The examples are legion - mortgage interest (encouraged), cigarettes (discouraged) etcetera.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pmESTRachel,
You are absolutely correct that my defense of parenthood has nothing to do with this debate, just as all the parent-bashing to which I explicitly stated I was responding also has nothing to do with this debate. Add to that list all the bitching about the sorry state of our education system and the myriad other subjective tangents which inevitably occur in an extended collection of comments such as this one.
In a perfect world we would all stay strictly on-topic, state our opinions in a reasoned manner, and never resort to painting those with whom we disagree with the proverbial overly-broad brush. But reality is what it is.
If you had to separate more chaff from the wheat you were expecting on this thread, that’s just the way it is sometimes. Who has the time to moderate all this stuff anyway?
In my own defense, and speaking as part of the chaff, at least I never told you or anyone else to Shut The Fuck Up, nor would I. And if you think my tone was condescending, just go back and re-read some of the anti-child/parent comments that preceded mine.
BTW, I love reading your blog, and even my bleeding-heart-liberal girlfriend has taken a shine to it too.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pmEST[Thanks Jay, and you are right about the chaff and wheat. It's been a rough week and I just wasn't up for THIS. Heh. And trust me, I know you never would tell anyone to shut the fuck up, and I appreciate that. - Rachel]
DaveW,
Oh, Good Lord! You’re absolutely right! It was Moron Pundit! (I’d clipped the quote first, then ctrl ‘f’-ed on “survive” to find the author — sloppy!)
Sincere apologies to all — very badly done on my part. (I guess your “days of not taking [me] seriously are definitely coming to a middle” by now!)
mightysamurai,
We seem to differ on a couple of key definitions: I don’t see how ‘Maintenance’ and ‘Restraint’ equate to ‘conditioning’.
I will certainly concede that conditioning occurs, but I would assert that, ideally, it should be an unintended consequence, as opposed to a goal. ‘That it should occur’ doesn’t necessarily follow from ‘that it does occur’!
Actually, I think they provide a pretty useful reference where the issue of intent arises — does that not bear?
Now, I’m all for “letting people keep more of their own hard-earned money” — as I said in my original post, I take every break I can get — but wouldn’t it be better to either cut taxes across the board, or move to a national retail sales tax, so as to move the power to direct legal behavior out of government and back to the individual?
And, frankly, if you really can’t afford kids without the tax break, you probably can’t afford them even with it!
April 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pmESTI’m about to STFU myself, but . . . suppose our elected officials were to examine their legislative proposals and say to themselves, “This policy will certainly have unintended consequences — what might those be, and will they be for good or ill?”
Just think what the world might be like if Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ had been examined in that way!
Maybe I’ve been drinking out of my “Imagine no liberals” mug too long — something in the glaze, perhaps?
April 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pmESTAs a person with no children, add my voice to the chorus who feels it’s BS that people who made the conscious decision to have children are required to pay a lower percentage of their taxes than me.
I really think we need to do away with our entire tax code and just go with a consumption-based tax.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pmESTOther than in specific instances, of course. I woulda, but I save my long lectures on econ theory for places where they don’t make eyes glaze over and inspire people to hunt me down and gag me with a textbook shoved down my throat.
They’re kinda not–they get more exemptions and credits. Part of it is they get to claim their kid’s exemptions just as a single-earner married couple can claim one for the non-working spouse. They would under the flat tax and fair tax proposals as well. You really don’t want a VAT. Trust me. Look to Europe.
As for the Federalist Papers, the parts the Founders considered crucial they incorporated into the document that rules–the Constitution. The Preamble of which says the purpose of our govrnment is to “promote the general welfare,” among other things. Yeah, some of the other things it says conflict with that. Why we have a pluralistic design of government.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:56 pmESTSomehow I don’t think the Founding Fathers had the image of a crack ho with her brood of children waiting for a government check in mind when thinking up that little gem.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:16 pmESTLet me assure you that whatever your personal family experiences were, hM, that of the population group “people with children”, the vast majority of same are not crack ho’s and don’t get welfare.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pmESTAgain, I agree in principle. The government shouldn’t enact any policy whose only purpose is social engineering.
However, I see no problem with policies that are intended to serve a practical purpose AND to socially engineer. Social engineering isn’t inherently a bad thing. Public service announcements are a form of social engineering and there’s nothing wrong with that.
It can, but remember that the Federalist Papers were written in the 1700s and the Constitution has changed quite a bit since then. There was no income tax back then so the Papers don’t address the proper role of the government in that regard.
Of course it would. But we won’t get that by complaining that parents get a tax break. The only thing you’ll accomplish doing that is to get that tax break taken away.
In the grand scheme of things, tax breaks for parents is the least of our concerns. There are plenty of far more glaring problems with the income tax to waste time worrying about this.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pmESTUm, no, the scope of the general welfare clause is made quite clear by the 10th Amendment.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pmESTI never said they did. What I was getting at is that when people think of welfare now, they tend to think of leeching off the system, as opposed to the idea of general well-being, which comes across as being pretty well represented in the government’s responsibility to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:41 pmESTOh, noooo! I hate those nanny-state, simultaneously-waste-my-tax-dollar-and-insult-my-intelligence things! Ew ew ew!
Not by much — since the first ten, only seventeen amendments in over 200 years? I’d say the original is pretty darned robust!
In regard to income tax, no, but in regard to taxation in general, the framers had a great deal to say — seven of the eighty-five Federalist Papers (30-36) deal with the subject (so it was a hot topic then, too!), including expressing the opinion that tariffs not be so punitive as to alter buying habits!
This bit — from Paper 35 — certainly seems germaine:
April 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pmESTWell they’re designed mostly for kids, not for you.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:19 amESTAmerica alone has drastically changed my mind on demographics. Children are needed, FACT. Im 25, and until AA came along, i wanted a dog/cat/monkey anything other than kids. Im still on the fence about the possibility of having some rugrats of my own someday.. but im at least comtemplating it now. The core thesis of the book, drastic population decline in the west along with cultural and social changes is unavoidable. Why? because of civilizational self sucide.. alot of the comments above only reinforces the fact that we truly are Screwed.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:14 amESTReally simple. Me and my wife (2 Taxpayers) produced 4 Children (4 Taxpayers). Those 4 taxpayers have paid for my 25 years of deductions and then some.
BTW I’m paying one half of 55 peoples social security. When do I get that back?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pmESTHey Lee, it’s real easy to dip your face into that gub-erment trough. Just you and your ol’ lady start knocking out those crump pickers. You can have as many little tax deductions as you’d like.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pmEST