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 pmThink 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 pmI 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 pmNope. 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 pmI.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 pmAmerica 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 pmNo, 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 pmRachel’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 pmI 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 pmRead 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 pmI’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 pmWachel 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 pmDespite 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 pmDani says: And we are very far from our carrying capacity, Heather.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pmSHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! But thanks a ton for the tax refund.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pmWhen 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 pmFrom 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 pmWow, 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 pmI completely agree with you!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pmI 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 pmSo 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 pmFair? 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 pmRachel, 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 pmDearRachel,
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 pmmike
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 pmNations 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 pmThis 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 pmPeople 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 pmRachel: 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 pmMartin:
“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 pmI 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 pmUsing 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 pmRachel,
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 pmHeather, 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 pmTake 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 pmOf 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 pmMy 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 pmLee,
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 pmWhy 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 pmI 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 pmI’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 pmI 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 pmI 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 pmI’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 pmI 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 pmFair 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 pmThere 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 pmDani, 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 pmhttp://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 pmLee - 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 pmI’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 pmHey, 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 pmRachel 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 pmHey, 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 pmFreedomLover, 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 pmDani,
April 24th, 2008 at 4:04 pmI 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 pmIt 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 pmProbably 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 pmI 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 pmBut 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 pmI 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 pmPeople 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 pmFreedomlover,
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 pmProbably 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 pmNor 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 pmYears 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 pmThe 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 pmI 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 pmObligatory 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 pmWow, 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 pmI’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 pmJay:
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 pmYou’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 pmGood 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 pmApril 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
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 pmI’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 pmTracy:
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 pmThe 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 pmRachel, 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 pmA-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 pmWow, 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 pmWhile 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 pmI’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 pmCknight,
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 pmYou 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 pmI’m fine with that - as far as I’m concerned the only break should be savings for retirement.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pmYou 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 pmOf 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 pmI’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 pmWhat Ith said.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pmI 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 pmI 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 pmI 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 pmTax credits are not extra money. They denote less money that is taxable.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pmOr rather, less tax that has to be paid. I’m getting tired.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pmWhere 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 pmIt just makes the most sense.
Flat tax better.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:57 pmAn 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 pmAnywyn, 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 pmHeather:
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 pmCarbo, 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 pmHeather, 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 pmAnwyn,
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 pmWhich 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 pmWell, 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 pmChris_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 pmSix 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 pmGiven 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 pmAnwyn,
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 pmLooks like we’re in agreement — no?
felicity, I’d say that’s a fair assessment.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:15 pmBTW, 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 pmHello 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 pmI 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 cultu