Why do people get a tax credits for having kids?

[Pryderi]

[Maru Kitteh]

1. Because those of us who spawn are much better than you are.

I mean - that is what you're looking for, right?

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. LOL just pour some gasoline on the fire why don'tcha?

[Maru Kitteh]

18. *Snarf* - I couldn't help it. I've spent the entire week at a govt. seminar.

Entire portions of my frontal lobe may be forever lost.

:rofl:

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. That sounds worse than some of the teacher conferences I attended...

Although I do remember one (parts of it anyway) in Palm Springs that was the stuff of legend...

[iamthebandfanman]

70. lmao... you breeder elitist! lol ;) n/t

[seabeyond]

113. see.. i was going to go more we are fuckin selfish assholes depleting.....

you know. lol

but yours work

[lame54]

136. I think he's looking for an answer to a legitimate question...

which obviously you don't have

[theHandpuppet]

173. Yep.

I've asked myself the same question and it doesn't look as if anyone here is willing to offer up any REAL answers.

[seabeyond]

189. when you have children, you are pumping more money into the economy..... that is a simple

enough equation

[Synnical]

2. Cuz Dem's Share

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale who chose to be childless.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Because we live in a country that despises childless people and likes to punish them.

Others will spin this as "we live in a country that recognizes that parents need some help so we all pitch in", but that's bullshit. We chip in by helping build schools, pay for teachers, provide police to help curb child abuse and so on...

but we sure as hell don't need to be giving handouts just because someone had a child.

The ones who spin will say it's "a reduction in the taxes of those with children to give them some help".

I say it's not a reduction in their taxes, it's a fine added to the taxes of the childless for having the audacity not to reproduce.

I'd love to get a big tax credit for whatever expensive thing I decide to spend time on. Of course, that would be ludicrous and utterly unfair to everyone else, and so I'd never push for it.

But you can bet dimes to dollars that whoever came up with the tax credit for people with children was a person who had children.

Maybe some day congress will be full of people who love to collect guitars and spend their vacations in Japan, and then *I* can get a tax handout to help me live my chosen lifestyle.

[Gman2]

6. And endure the marriagew penalty?

[HuckleB]

12. You might want to fix your attempted Princess Bride mimic.

It's a bit sketchy.

[Iggo]

89. I am tha Dwed Pie-wut Wah-butts!!

How's that?

[MattBaggins]

104. What marriage penalty? The made up one to keep people angry

and divided?

[Abq_Sarah]

130. Actually, there was a marriage penalty

And a marriage bonus.

The CBO released a report about both in the late 90's.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=7&type=0

[meow2u3]

161. And that marriage penalty (or bonus) depended on whether or not both spouses worked

...outside the home. There was a marriage bonus if one spouse was a full-time homemaker. The marriage penalty occured when both spouses worked and whose income was close to equal. The tax code penalized dual-income couples while it rewarded single-income families. Nowadays, given the sky-high cost of living, a family can hardly get by on one income alone.

[HuckleB]

8. .

:rofl:

[southlandshari]

58. "...whatever expensive thing I decide to spend time on..."

Yeah. That pretty much describes my daughter. But I guess I could ditch her for a new ATV or the latest version of "Rock Band" with all the accoutrements. Because that's all she is, of course. An expensive thing I've decided to spend time on.

Sheesh. Have we really come to this? I totally respect you Rbrrrrr (and you know I do) and anyone else who chooses not to have children. For whatever reason. But has that choice truly led you to the point at which you cannot see the difference between a human being and a pasttime?

[Skittles]

186. you completely missed the point

see MattBaggins' reply below; he gets the point

[Dorian Gray]

78. My only problem with your argument

is that children are not 'things' that we spend time and money on. They are human beings with physical needs.

[MicaelS]

82. If more Progressives had children and passed THEIR values

On to their kids, instead of mainly Conservatives doing that, America would be a more Progressive country.

[blueamy66]

95. Yee Haw

Now I don't have to type anything!

[MattBaggins]

102. Married with two kids.

You are absolutely correct. I have no idea why I get more money back at the end of the year as the single folks with no kids.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Maybe its the same reason adults without children pay taxes for schools and other services.

Because children are our future and they do not, of themselves, generate much by way of income.

They actually cost quite a bit.

I have no children, I have no problem knowing that some portion of my property and income taxes support others' children.

:patriot:

[HuckleB]

13. That's my take.

Now, I do have a kid, but I waited until I was 38, so I did pay taxes sans child for a good amount of time.

Still, you do have more sway than I on this matter.

:hi:

[DesertFlower]

40. i was a grandmother at 38. nt

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

92. I don't have any little devils either, but I don't have any problems kicking in.

We're all in this together.

[NYC_SKP]

116. Yep, I want well-fed and educated adults taking care of business when I'm no longer able...

And these would people who are presently children, other peoples' children.

That, and it's just the right thing to do.

I can't believe it's even being discussed.

:shrug:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

154. Oh, Boo Boo!

(in response to Chimpy McSmirkers). Married couple, no kids here.

[MattBaggins]

106. I have two kids

all those things that kids need are the very reason that the folks who have them shouldn't be taking that tax credit and demanding that childless folks foot the bill.

[hack89]

119. + 1 nt

[bobbolink]

144. .

:applause:

We actually value children.

What a concept.

[deaniac21]

193. If they don't get educated we have no job pool.

[Initech]

7. Why cant we single people get a tax credit for having twins in the jacuzzi?

[bemildred]

9. Long term survival of the species?

I'm not saying that it's going to work, but society does have an interest in perpetuating itself and the human species.

[lame54]

137. overpopulation is going to kill us

[bemildred]

149. No kids would kill us too.

We are ephemeral beings, you gotta pass the torch along.

[lame54]

159. tax credits or no tax credits - there will be births...

that has NEVER been a problem

[bemildred]

162. Well Dang then, we don't need to worry about anything killing us. nt

[KoKo]

178. Don't worry about it...Natural Disasters and Endless Wars will keep the population well in check

in the coming decades. We might end up with a deficit of young people who will be needed to carry on civilization.

[Statistical]

177. We tend to perpetuate (actually over-perpetuate) without any tax advantage.

Cutting the child tax credit wouldn't materially affect birth rates.
Even if it did that would simply free up more room in immigration queues (so average wait for greencard will be a decade instead of 12 years). :)

This planet has too many people and the population is still growing way too fast.

We hit 1 billion people in 1804.
It took us nearly 123 years to add this next billion - 1927 (2.0 billion total).
It took only 33 years to add the next billion - 1960 (3.0 billion total)
It took less than 14 years each to add the next 3 billions 4,5, 6.

6.7 billion people as of 2010.

Projected growth to:
7 billion by 2012,
8 billion by 2025,
9 billion by 2040

After that is gets really bad really fast.



To achieve UN "medium" curve birth rate needs to be cut by about 60%. To achieve UN low rate birthrate needs to be cut by 85%.
Part of the "problem" is it is projected under next century infant mortality in developing world will plummet. If birthrates don't also plummet we will destroy the planet.

We shouldn't be adding an economic incentive (no matter how small) to have children.

[Chulanowa]

10. You're buying reiki massages for billionaires, and this is your worry?

Priorities, man, priorities!

[bobbolink]

145. ^_^

Very well put!

:applause:

[Naturalist111]

11. You can claim all warm bodies, that you

support under a certain age, you also include yourself. It is called overhead or underfoot which ever you prefer.

[HuckleB]

14. Way to bring logic to the thread.

What's next? You going to bring data, too.

;)

[Naturalist111]

28. I rarely do that. I figure people can at least help themselves

somewhat. I just posted some data on another thread if you must be assured. Not about this subject though. It is the reason. Corporations deduct for their employees and I will deduct for my children. No employees no employee deduction. No children no children deductions. It would be best if all parents could deduct for the total cost for the year per child. That would be more like a corporation employee deduction (payroll).

[undeterred]

124. If that were true I could claim my dog.

And they won't even give him a social security number. :shrug:

[Naturalist111]

134. LOL only people!

[undeterred]

139. You said "warm bodies" so I thought maybe

you were including pets, except cold-blooded ones. Actually I think there should be tax deductions for pet medical expenses, which can be substantial. I once spent $6K in a year.

[Naturalist111]

152. A farmer or a Rancher does why shouldn't you?

[havocmom]

155. stock animals are NOT pets, they are revenue producing assets

Vet and feed bills are part of doing business for farmers/ranchers. Not the same thing as my Golden Retriever who is snoring from the bed as I type. He is wonderful company and therapy, but he does not produce milk I can sell, nor meat

Now, dog BREEDERS, who make income from those critters, they probably can take deductions for the costs associated with keeping their breeding animals.

[Naturalist111]

194. I am glad you said that.

:-)

[Vickers]

15. So that I can get rich with those tax credits.

:eyes:

[MrsMatt]

181. +1

That $1000 per kid (times two) could help finance my condo in Costa Rica. If only I didn't have to feed them.

[Tailormyst]

16. Because raising the next generation costs far more then any tax credit

It helps offset a small portion of the costs.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Because raising children pushes you 99% of the way towards wanting to murder non-parents...

...and the government doesn't want to push parents over the line.

[DesertFlower]

41. exactly.

:rofl:

[katandmoon]

19. I'd rather help support other people's kids than their fucking churches!

The tax exemptions the big and often criminal racket known as organized religion bothers me infinitely more.

[HuckleB]

20. You win the POST OF THE DAY AWARD!

:hi:

[katandmoon]

45. Thanks! :)

[yodoobo]

27. The church tax exemption is a function of seperation of church/state

When Churchs start paying taxes is when when churches start having cabinet level positions.


Giving them a tax break is a small price to keep them out of government.


(yes I know they attempt to meddle but their efforts are highly limited as long as church/state seperation is still law)

[HuckleB]

32. Please explain how allowing churches to have special privileges helps keep the divide in place.

[MajorChode]

47. There is no linkage between the 1st amendment and tax exempt status

The USSC has stated more than once that churches don't receive their tax exempt status based on the 1st amendment. They receive their tax exempt status because they are a defined as an eligible entity under section 501 in the federal tax code. If they engage in certain political activities, they can lose their tax exempt status just like any other 501(c)(3) organization.

Congress and the President could decide tomorrow to abolish section 501(c)(3) in the tax code and churches would lose their tax exempt status immediately with no legal recourse. The first amendment would still guarantee a wall of division between the state and religion.

[yodoobo]

49. you said it

"If they engage in certain political activities, they can lose their tax exempt status just like any other 501(c)(3) organization."


Remove the massive incentive and that wall will be gone. If that requires rewriting the constitution, they'll do it.

[MajorChode]

50. Rewriting the constitution is a lot harder than changing the tax code

The wall will always be there so long as the 1st amendment is the law of the land. Lots of churches already preach politics from the pulpit. They are just smart enough not to publicly mention any candidate or party by name. If their tax exemption were removed, they would just be a little more overt about their political activities. I can't see much changing.

[yodoobo]

52. well i agree it won't change

But I think that "little more overt" is a vast understatement.


FWIW, "always" is a very strong word. Look how much of the constitution was "re-interpreted" during the Bush years. The 1st amendment is hardly immune.

Also, a highly motivated populace can change the constitution pretty quickly. Think about how quickly prohibition was repealed via constitutional amendment. Amendment to amendment was only 13 years (and countless lives)

In any event, there is plenty of places of bring in more revenues. Kicking that hornets nest will cost far more than what could be collected imo.

[MajorChode]

55. In order to change the constitution you'd need an issue that crosses ideological lines

There's just no way you're going to get a supermajority in Congress and the states on something that is only being pushed by one party. It's far easier to win by stacking the supreme and appeals courts with justices willing to legislate from the bench. The 9th circuit just told us that the phrase "Under God" is secular. Go figure.

[HuckleB]

112. Indeed.

And it's difficult to see how they qualify for 501(c)(3) status, much of the time.

[MajorChode]

125. Because religious organizations are specifically listed in 501(c)(3)

It's kind of comical watching them skirt the political prohibitions in the statute. For many years I've been a member of a charitable volunteer organization near where I live. Each of our meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance and a prayer (I live in Texas). I decline to participate in both. When Bush was president, our self-appointed chaplain would always include a prayer for the president. After Obama was elected, he changed the prayer he had been using for almost 8 years from "president" to "elected leaders". What makes it really funny is that he knows if he were to ever cross the political prohibition line by a fraction of an inch, I would immediately report him to our board of trustees and his ass would be thrown out. So he rides up as close as he possibly can to the line without going over. I enjoy watching the show.

[katandmoon]

44. What's that got to do with paying taxes for the services they receive?

We who pay taxes must subsidize them. How is that separation of church and state?

[yodoobo]

51. nothing.

But we aren't talking about services - We're talking about influence.

The reason the government exempted church from taxation was to limit their influence in government. taxation without representation anyone?

If they start paying taxes, they'll demand - and get a voice in government like any other taxpayer.

Tax them, and within a generation we'll be dealing with a state church and clergyman at the highest levels of goverment.

nah. let sleeping dogs lie.

[Jamastiene]

56. It's not working.

They are getting money from the government as we speak. They are in control of our government as we speak and have been for ages now. You can believe they have limited power in government all you want, but you are mistaken.

[ejpoeta]

73. can you tell the churches to stay out of the government then because they sure seem to

be inflicting themselves on the rest of us. I mean, from telling their flock who to vote for to trying to take away my right to choose whether i want kids or not they are involved. and i believe they have had a place in the white house..... didn't bush give them a voice??? office of something or other religious?

If they keep their religion out of my business then i'm fine with the tax exemption. but there seems to be a lot of them with a lot more of the government's attention than the rest of us.

[hobbit709]

105. Jefferson and Madison didn't think so

The original Virginia and Kentucky state constitutions didn't exempt churches.

[MattBaggins]

108. Churches already have cabinet level posistions.

[awoke_in_2003]

171. Churches don't pay property tax...

but I do. So, when do I get my cabinet level position?

[yodoobo]

176. You can have anything you want

If you are paying 10 of millions in tax on billions of income.

Just ask any fortune 100 company.

if relgions were no longer tax exempt, they would probably reorganize into corporations...and be the #1 through #10 top corporations in the nation or world.

We already have a problem with corporate influence. No idea why people want to expand the problem with religious influence.

[awoke_in_2003]

179. I don't even think...

the catholic church would make it into the top 10, and the protestant groups are too splintered. By the way, I am an atheist- I dont want the expansion of religious influence, but I do want them to pay their fair share.

[madmom]

111. + 100 brazillion

[HuckleB]

21. This looks like a hit and run job.

[Toucano]

23. +1

Yeah. Why feed a troll?

[yodoobo]

24. kids are expensive

and without them humanity will die.

Thats the theory.

The practical reason is that any politician that tries to eliminate the tax break will not be a politician any longer. families are a pretty large voting block.

[MzShellG]

120. We have a winner!

Simple, precise, and to the point. In other words...Duhhhh

[Fading Captain]

25. All tax credits need to go away. ALL OF THEM.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Steve Forbes, is that you? n/t

[ZombieHorde]

126. Why do all tax credits need to go away? nt

[Fading Captain]

163. Why should the government encourage or discourage behaviour

with tax breaks?

What's the point of having a tax rate if it doesn't apply to anyone?

[ZombieHorde]

167. I don't think very many people have kids for tax reasons, so I don't

think the government is encouraging behavior. Some people may have kids for tax reasons, but these folks are probably an extreme minority. The tax credits for families exists to help poor people.

The tax rates apply to everyone, but the rates are different for different situations, as they should be.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. Because having a child is the quickest way to drop below the poverty line...

Poverty line for a single individual under 65 - $ 11,201
Poverty line for two people no children - $ 14,417
Poverty line for two parents and one child - $ 17,330
Poverty line for two parents and two children - $ 21,834
Poverty line for two parents and three children - $ 25,694

It is a function of how much more it costs to raise a family. Every extra person to fee, cloth, pay for medical care, send to school costs a lot of money. That $1,000.00 a year is suppose to make up for the increased cost of raising children.

[LeftyMom]

29. Because they're an enormous expense.

A mortgage is a better tax perk, and I don't get to sell my kid when I don't want him anymore.

[HuckleB]

30. Get 'em jobs, or ten!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpu5_3qk4KM

;)

[LeftyMom]

31. I love the comment somebody made:

junkmailboy1000 Ha, I wonder how the Hey Mon family is doing in this economy. Even with a layoff they got like 8 jobs to fall back on. 10 1 year ago

[HuckleB]

33. If only I hadn't been so durned lazy!

:hi:

[drmeow]

34. They get tax credits for having

dependents. Children are the most common dependents. You can also claim an elderly parent whom you are caring for as a dependent. I think wives also used to be dependents. I think that patriarchal attitude combined with the poverty issue someone mentioned (i.e., it makes the income tax more progressive from a disposable income level) is why. It's also why there is a marriage penalty. The tax code is written for 1 male head of household and his dependents.

[Naturalist111]

38. Yep! You can claim the wife if she doesn't work.

Well put.

[Robb]

147. Or the husband, you know. There are stay-at-home dads, and we qualify as dependents.

For the moment, anyhow.

[Foo Fighter]

35. To encourage the poor and working class to provide fodder for the war

machine.

Also, if the poor and working class suddenly stopped reproducing, who would be left to pay taxes? The rich. Well, as everybody knows, we can't have that. No, the rich need the "lower classes" to reproduce so that their offspring will continue to prop up the reverse-Robin-Hood ponzi scheme that the top 1% have going. If you're single and/or have no kids, you're not contributing to their system and thus don't deserve any kind of break. Oh, and if you're single and/or poor and have a kid, you're the dirge of humankind. You're obviously a welfare queen and deserve absolutely no help. But hey, thanks for having that kid. S/he will serve our needs well. As long as we can keep him/her in poverty for his/her entire life, that's all that matters.

Face it. The rich own this country. Always have and always will. They write the bills that Congress passes. If it doesn't benefit the rich, it won't fly. Unless, of course, the bills are needed to save capitalism from itself (re: FDR). Aside from that, we're screwed. And they've been more and more blatant about it over the years with no repercussions so we can expect more of the same. Nice system if you're one of the top 1%. For the rest of us, yeah, not so much,

[conspirator]

98. That's definitely the main reason. We are a resource. We are not born. We are grown nt

[Foo Fighter]

157. Yep.

"Soylent Green is people!"

The rich feed off the poor and middle class and depend on them to prop up the system so they can continue to get richer. The poor and middle class used to get thrown a few crusts here and there to keep them happy. The elites have since decided we don't even deserve that much. These days, we get a few crumbs on occasion if we're lucky and, since there has been no backlash, we can expect even less in the coming years. The crappy economy will be blamed for all the cutbacks to the social programs but Wall Street will continue to get handouts to "get the economy back on its feet so we can help the American people."

Things will continue to get worse for the poor and working class without a major change in the system. Unfortunately, most people are too busy watching "American Idol" to be bothered.

[DesertFlower]

37. bill maher just asked that question.

[Orrex]

39. Incidentally, Bill Maher is an asshole.

Not because of this question, though. Just generally.

[havocmom]

156. +1

[DesertFlower]

42. some friends of mine are using

a surrogate. she had a hysterectomy, but they were able to extract eggs. the surrogate is about 12 weeks pregnant. it cost $135,000. i told them if you think that's a lot wait until you start raising the child.

[Toucano]

43. Taxation: The People's Business

In 1924, Sec. of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon wrote: (emphasis my own)

The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end.

The wealthy don't have children in proportion to their wealth.

The working class people don't have children in proportion to their poverty.


Reducing the burden of working people and families has been a goal since the inception of the income tax in the United States because it is fair.

If we now need to look to the thinking of a "Robber Barron", wealthy industrialist to make that clear, then we are truly no longer a nation in any sense of the word.

[Rincewind]

46. Because they taste like chicken?

[Fumesucker]

79. You might want to Google the term "long pig". n/t

[brewens]

48. I'd like to see that changed some. Maybe a bigger exemption,

for the first child, the same as now for the second and nothing for the third or any more than three. Maybe start increasing taxes for any more than three.
I'm single and don't mind my taxes going to schools and everything for other peoples kids, but after a point, they should pay more.

[exboyfil]

59. Another take on this which might get flamed

When this first started happening my view was that from a macro standpoint the government was trying to create incentives for the most productive citizens (ie taxpayers) to have more children. On a micro scale it is ludicrous to think a $1,000 would be the break point for individuals deciding to have children or not but from a macro scale I think it is effective.

It may be that all citizens are fungible and it does not matter whether the next generation genetically and culturally comes from traditional middle class parents, or it could be that the societal demands that will be placed on those children will need some sort of familial/cultural link. In other words will the child from Latin America be willing to step up and pay your Social Security, or will he/she be more apt to ask the question - "What about my parents?"

[southlandshari]

60. just so we're clear....

You are asserting the idea that the government is trying to encourage parents to have more children by offering the tax credits as they currently stand?

[exboyfil]

62. Yes from a macro standpoint

Why else do it? It would be interesting to see a study if other externalities are removed regarding whether that is the true effect. We are not the only country that has done it. It may be $1,000/child is not effective. The middle class is the easiest fruit to pick on the tax tree (lots of them representing a huge pool of wages with very few avoidance techniques available to them).

Childless couples do have a point regarding subsidizing breeding and, from a societal standpoint, if we can get the next generation from Latin America then why not do it all else being equal. The next generation better come from somewhere and they better be willing to pony up some huge taxes for the priviledge of living and working in this country - otherwise the 40-60 somethings are going to be in a world of hurt moving forward.

[southlandshari]

66. I understand

Thanks for the clarification. I am probably not the best subject because I tend to look at things from a human standpoint rather than a micro or macro or any other -o.

I really do appreciate your explanation, though. : )

[exboyfil]

68. An interesting paper on this point (encouraging fertility)

The Pronatalist Undercurrent of the $500-per-Child Tax Credit
Journal Population & Environment
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0199-0039 (Print) 1573-7810 (Online)
Issue Volume 20, Number 5 / May, 1999
DOI 10.1023/A:1023313103035
Pages 455-465
Subject Collection Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
SpringerLink Date Saturday, October 30, 2004

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7086uw215t32221/

Mark Powell1

(1) Vermont Population Alliance, USA


Abstract A review of studies which find a positive impact of tax structure on American fertility suggests this effect will increase with the tax benefits legislated by the 1997 $500-per-child tax credit. The tax credit also resembles pronatalist family allowances in other developed countries. First, however, the article investigates the intent of the tax credit, showing that key supporters hope it will increase fertility among tax-paying Americans. Lastly, the pronatalist undercurrent of the tax credit suggests that future efforts will push for further increasing the tax benefits of children in order to increase the American birth rate.

[southlandshari]

69. Can't wait to read it!

Of course, that's as soon as that little tax-supported meal ticket of a daughter I have to put up with gets her little pre-teen ass out of the house. I'm hoping she'll get knocked up so we can get double the benefits AND be the subjects of the next lofty bit of academia you choose to post here. Until then, carry on.

:hi:

[exboyfil]

72. You are really taking this personally

I am only communicating the intellectual discussion surrounding the tax credit. I am very thankful for the tax credit, and it represents a good chunk of the money that I am able to set aside for my daughters for their college. Frankly I think our tax code is insane and the child tax credit is just one example of the insanity in it. Every year the code gets more complicated as it continues to be used to drive certain behaviors. If a college educated person cannot fill out a pretty simple return (ie no capital gains, real property transactions, rent but only wages and credit union interest in under an hour then we have a real problem in this country).

I know the credit did not influence my decision to have children.

[southlandshari]

74. And you are really taking this intellectually

If forced to make a choice between the two, I'm comfortable with where I am. : )

Mainly because I know that having a personal stake in this doesn't mean I gave up my intellectual reason. The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. : )

[theHandpuppet]

174. I like your idea

At some point there should be limits.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. I would imagine it's because the majority of voters are parents

And if not it's because of concentration of costs and diffusion of benefits. Parents would raise a huge fuss if they loss their tax credit whereas non-parents would not care very much if they took away the tax credit from somebody else. It's the same reason we still have the Cuban Embargo.

Does that answer your question?

[JI7]

54. because we were all kids at one time

[southlandshari]

57. maybe because they have more mouths to feed?

:shrug:

[theHandpuppet]

175. And everyone else should pay for their choice.

Is that what you're saying?

[southlandshari]

183. No.

Not what I was saying at all.

[miscsoc]

61. kids have (mostly) a working life ahead of them, and therefore will pay taxes

and sustain the economy.

I don't have any immediate plans to have children but I do think it's something to be encouraged, esp. in western countries where there is a risk of actual population decline.

[southlandshari]

63. Population decline

While I agree with you about today's children sustaining tomorrow's economy, I'm not sure that population decline - in any country - is a bad thing at all.

I don't mean that as a vote against having children, just that there is nothing wrong with NOT having children. There is no drumbeat to procreate, and there shouldn't be. Those who choose not to...choose not to.

And I would hope that they would understand that the tax credits - meager as they are, and they are, trust me - given to those who do have children are there simply to help us get by as we raise future Americans. I honestly don't understand the problem here...

[exboyfil]

64. If all people are fungible

Why when a ready pool of high producing immigrants are available to us, to the Japanese, and to the Western Europeans?

[southlandshari]

67. Ok...nevermind

You fungible son of a bitch.

:eyes:

[miscsoc]

75. immigrants take time to assimilate, people aren't fungible in a straightforward sense

i don't blame for that, but it can be socially disruptive if a country is excessively reliant on immigrants for its labour force - integration is a lengthy process. roots have to be put down, the immigrants and the existing population need to mutually adjust to the new cultural mixture.

[jberryhill]

65. Because those kids are going to pay YOUR social security /nt

[Pharlo]

71. Cause, if they can't figure out how to use birth control,

they need all the help they can get.

[southlandshari]

77. I saw a GREAT sigline recently...

It read:

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

:applause:

[Vinca]

76. Good question. When you consider they use and consume more

resources that those of us who are childless, they ought to be paying more. (I'm now ducking.)

[dkf]

80. Yup I don't get it.

And half those kids will grow up to not pay federal income tax.

[southlandshari]

81. Interesting

Can you explain this further?

[rucky]

83. Because it takes more out of your core income to raise 'em.

Two people are earning the same income, and one has kids and one doesn't. Which one will have a harder time making ends meet?

It's the same philosophy behind any form of progressive taxation. After your basic needs are met through your income, the remainder should be taxed accordingly. People with kids have more basic needs. People who choose not to have kids are more likely to have disposable income. Sure it's a choice (usually), but it's a pretty basic one. Both are socially accepted and have their own sets of pros and cons.

Seems fair to me.

[GinaMaria]

114. It's a choice

you don't have to have them. No one is forcing you. So if it takes more of your income, that was your choice. Two people with the same income one has a huge expensive house and one doesn't. Which one will have a harder time making ends meet? Who cares? Choices were made that impact finances.

I'm not arguing that parents shouldn't receive a break, but just because you can have kids doesn't mean you should. If you can't afford to raise them, don't have them. You are not doing the world any favors by bringing a child into this world that you cannot feed, clothe, love, nurture and educate. Having children is a selfless act that requires you to give a lot and expect nothing in return. It's not for everybody. I agree with the poster who said tax breaks for first and second child only, beyond that and the societal support stops. At some point the use of resources becomes piggish (look at that crazy Dugger family).

There is symbiotic relationship with tax breaks for kids and taxpayers. My property taxes go toward community police services to decrease crime and my neighborhood schools which if funded correctly are very high performing. All of this increases my property value which I will pay more property tax on. I benefit by increased property value, living in a safe neighborhood, investing in productive and educated youth that will sustain this level of comfort in my neighborhood, and pay taxes for services that I may need in my old age. However, more is not better. Investing the same resources in fewer people increases the quality of the result. What are we shooting for here? Quantity or quality? I see a future that will benefit more from quality than quantity.

[rucky]

121. It's about as much of a choice as where you work.

People don't always have control over it.

[GinaMaria]

166. BS. Your statement would have been true years ago

but noy today. There is control over it. More now than in the past. It's a choice how much control you have. The Duggers and OctoMom made their choices. They had control and chose not to use it.

[rucky]

169. C'mon, those are extremes. The people with the greatest need for family planning

have the least access to the resources. Today there are less Planned Parenthoods than there were 10 years ago. When that changes, we can talk.

[zinnisking]

84. Why do people who *don't pay any taxes* get tax credits for having kids?

I made a post about this subject in a local forum last year.

A welfare recipient that I know was about to have her fourth kid. Four years ago she said to me that the more kids you have, the more money you get. She gets $1,000 per kid (or is it $1200?). She gets a boat load of food stamps and handout food, much of which rots away. Before she found another sugar daddy, she had free housing and free heat. In our bitter Wisconsin winters she would crank the heat to an ungodly temp. and leave the main door or a window open all day long when it became unbearable. One year, the Salvation Army invited her and her kids to the store to pick out some Christmas gifts. She later complained to me that her kids ONLY GOT TO PICK OUT TWO TOYS! OMG! The kids' floors were always blanketed with toys (mostly electronic) that they would play with once and never touch again. When "mom" got tired of looking at the toys she would make a mountain on the curb for the garbage men. As someone who recycles and makes an effort to conserve energy, this kind of carelessness and indifference to the environment and energy really burns me. This should drive every progressive mad. Plus, I work hard at a job that I hate. I didn't get $5,000+ from the state and fed. govt. Does anyone reading this think that this money went to the benefit the kids? Well, do ya?

I'm glad I'm not alone here.

Thanks for giving me a opportunity to vent.

[pipoman]

85. Talk about every single

non-progressive, anti-Democratic, cliche' against assisting the poor all in one post. I'll bet she buys soda, chips, and pre-sweetened cereal with her over abundance of food stamps too, then spends the change paid her in cash to buy cigarettes, huh?

[Mimosa]

115. I've known at least 2 welfare families just like that

Zinnisking, I've known people who raised families on welfare benefits. They weren't rolling in the dough but they weren't uncomfortable either. They get food, subsidised housing, and free medical care and prescriptions.

When i was about 16 I became deeply concerned about the effects of overpopulation on the planet. I had a malthusian view, just on my own. Early on DH and i decided not to have children. Many couples we know did not contribute more human beings to the planet. Yet there are no 'rewards' for our conscious sacrifices.

[zinnisking]

151. It's a vicious cycle, and encourages sloths to create more welfare kids.

When people have everything handed to them ad nauseam, they develop no sense of appreciation. People that easily come into unlimited amounts of money are the same way, in my opinion.

It's odd that you mention prescriptions. The person that I mentioned above (and other career welfarers) gets an unlimited amount of opiate based pain pills that she eats like candy and are paid for by the state. This is accurate and typical for people that turn welfare into a lifestyle, not just unfairly applied cliche'.

The main reason people give to answer the OP is that it costs a lot to raise a kid. That's the whole point! If you can't afford a kid in the first place, it is irresponsible to have one (much less another one! and another one! and another one!). Makes me want to puke.

[Dorian Gray]

190. Oh good....

you added drug abuser to your ignorant diatribe.

[ipaint]

182. The ignorance about welfare currently in this country is astounding.

Your rant sounds like a racist ronnie raygun speech. As a result of welfare reform 14 years ago over 50% of people have been dumped from the roles. Cash assistance has dropped to less than half of what it used to be replaced by job to nowhere training programs and daycare assistance. Lifetime benefits for adults are capped at 5 years.
And that is with a massive increase in the amount of taxpayer wealth that has been funneled to the top of the economic ladder in this country where the real public welfare hogs reside, the hoarding leeches that prevent the wealth from reaching all those welfare cheats you are so sure exist in your black and white world.

As a childless by choice person maybe you can tell me why it is that less and less people in this country can afford to raise a child. Is it only the upper middle, perpetually comfortable class and above that should be allowed to have their special (mostly white) children. And as the creep of low wages and crap jobs start nibbling at their heels should they also be denied the option to conceive, too.

At what point do folks like you stop blaming those with absolutely no power to change a cruel system that's sole purpose is to coddle and enrich the top 1% and start blaming those WITH the power and all that stolen wealth for the misery, poverty and violence their criminal selfishness creates.

Populations decrease with education including early age appropriate sex education, readily available birth control and abortion. How about directing some of that toxic venom towards the top 1% and force the hoarded wealth down into programs, jobs and adequately funded public schools that will change the trend of overpopulation in all economic classes in this country.

Your hate on for those you see as lower than you on the public dole serves the interests of the wealthy. In other words you being a good little tool.

[zinnisking]

184. Career welfare recipients don't know how much it costs to raise a child because everything is free.

I know all about corporate welfare and subsidies given to the very big businesses that tout "the free market". I got it and am equally repulsed by it.

Unlike the insult laden post from "pipoman", you actually provide good points. So coming from you, it hurts a little that you compare my rant to a reagan speech. Reagan himself, just like *, was a phony. A potted plant put there by the plutocratic elite who's genuine goal I believe is to destroy the middle class. Now I have to set some things straight.

The person I mentioned in my OP is white. She is someone that I care about. I live in a county that is some 90% white. Every welfare recipient I know personally is white (except for my ex-girlfriend.)

I am not ranting about people that accept food stamps and other charity as a stop gap when times are tough. There is a huge difference between them and people who turn living off of the state into a lifestyle. In my experience, *career* welfarers are lazy, irresponsible, and selfish. They should not be encouraged to have kids.

I approve of sex education, govt. funded abortion, and birth control. I also approve of the govt. paying for tubal ligation (had to look that one up). After having four welfare kids, the person I mentioned above finally had her tubes tied (paid for by the state). Yippee!

My ex-girlfriend is Native American and white. She is a welfare recipient. She HATES African Americans, Asians, Mexicans, and Arabs; Anyone who isn't white or Native American I guess. She, of course, votes Republican. She won't work and gets everything handed to her for free including her legally prescribed constant supply of pain pills. She says that the govt. "needs to help" her. She also says that black people in her neighborhood are lazy and shouldn't get free money. She spends her "child tax credit" on trips to Jamaica (at least once). Without her children of course.

Are you going to come to her defense simply because she, and by extension, her kids, are poor? The "child tax credits" don't benefit her kids. Bad ethics are typical of career welfare recipients. They should not be getting a free ride.

BTW, What did you mean by "Lifetime benefits for adults are capped at 5 years."?

[ipaint]

192. Welfare reform

Federal reforms in 1996 eliminated the entitlement to welfare and limited benefits to a maximum of five years in a lifetime. States can exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the federal time limit. Moreover, they can extend the time limit beyond five years, as long as benefits are paid with state dollars. In 2002 only two states—Michigan and Vermont—did not have any type of time limit on benefits (Bloom, Farrell, and Fink 2002). Seventeen states had time limits of less than five years.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310904.html

The number of folks, so called career welfare recipients, gaming the system is miniscule. Ranting on about them when the wealthy in this country steal trillions in taxpayer wealth is ridiculous. The children with the largest carbon footprint are those in the consumer classes, the offspring of folks with an endless supply of disposable cash. There is a huge number of those ethically challenged people and their children, many more than the few percent of welfare recipients that manage to cheat the system.

Of course the rich and their offspring are the true ethically challenged resource hogs. How about they stop reproducing.

[pipoman]

86. Every person

gets a standard deduction in our current tax system. Are you thinking that children shouldn't be considered people worthy of a standard deduction?

[fishwax]

100. there is a Child Tax Credit in addition to the deduction

The deduction reduces the amount of your income subject to tax, but the credit directly reduces the tax that you pay based on your income level.

[pipoman]

122. Oh yea, you are right...I stand corrected

The difference then must be that children are noncontributory residents who will someday shoulder the burden of the noncontributory elderly and infirm, thus are worthy of some relief for their sacrificing parents whose offspring will, one day, take care of those who choose not to have children.

[Riley18]

87. Why does the tax credit end once the kid turns 17? Why does social security stop

for dependents once they turn 18? These are their most expensive years. It used to be that the dependents would get benefits until they graduated college.

[TexasProgresive]

88. It is fair because the income of the family is distributed to all. n/t

[Historic NY]

90. Then the TV family of 19+ probably gets the government to pay for them.

[Klukie]

91. To help ease the costs of raising them.

I don't have a problem with it.

[TransitJohn]

93. Because TPTB need more consumers in the future

to keep funneling wealth upwards towards them.

[edhopper]

94. Because

it takes a Village.
And we are all the Village.

I don't have kids, but share in the responsibility for our nation's children.

[tabbycat31]

96. I have no issues with tax credits for children

HOWEVER, I think the number of children that you can claim for the tax credit should be capped at 4. I see no reason why Uncle Sam needs to give the Duggar family, Octomom, etc a huge tax break.

[Dr Morbius]

97. Because taxation should not deprive people of the necessities of life.

Because taxation, to be "fair," must be imposed more heavily upon those with more to spare, and must be applied more lightly to those with little or no money to spare.

Because taxes which take food out of the mouths of kids - and let's be honest, that's what you're calling for - are usurious. Harmful. Deleterious to society.

So you have to drive a Buick instead of an Infinity. Cry me a river.

[mainer]

99. Because those kids will be your doctors and nurses someday

Imagine getting to be 85 years old -- and everyone else in the country is 85 too. Then you'll wish somebody had had kids.

[divvy]

101. I got a HUGE tax refund for getting married.

My State and Federal refunds amounted to $7111. I would have got about $700 if I was still single and filed seperately.

[hobbit709]

103. Because they are future sources of revenue for the government.

[The Straight Story]

107. Because they are an investment and the govt has many mandates on parents (nt)

[Geek_Girl]

109. It truly does take a village.

I have to say having a kid is a huge expense in both time and money. Parents need all the help they can get to raise a child to be a productive, educated, well rounded member of our society. It's in all of our best interest to help kids and their parents.

[HughMoran]

110. Kids cost money

I know.

[WestSeattle2]

117. The same reason people with children get unlimited sick time at

work, while those of us without children have to show up every day.

"Day care called, have to run, thanks for finishing this report that I didn't do and is past deadline, maybe see you next week......"

[Bill McBlueState]

146. if you're envious of people who have to leave work to pick up a sick kid,

then you should have a kid. They're fairly easy to come by, and they get sick pretty frequently.

[WestSeattle2]

168. Envious?

Hardly. Resentful that their work repeatedly gets dumped on me? Yes.

Amazing to me how most parents are able to balance work and home responsibilities, while other parents could care less about work responsibilities, making everyone else in the office suffer.

[WeDidIt]

118. Because the government has a compelling interest in promoting procreation.

If all that is associated with children is cost and there are no tax benefits, there is a disincentive to procreate and populaiton decreases. Decreased populaiton will result in decreased productivity and decreased tax base.

Ther eis a strong compelling interest for the government to promote procreation.

[Taitertots]

123. You keep a starved dog from attacking by throwing it a bone

Give a few more pennies to them because they will demand a fair and equitable society if we don't.

Anything to keep people having children they can't afford to feed the consumption pyramid.

Because if parents had to bear the actual cost of raising children there would be less people having children.

[seabeyond]

127. we pump more money into the economy..... . nt

[DCBob]

128. Because without children there is no future for this planet.

duh.

[pitohui]

135. WITH children there is no future for this planet, which is screaming in pain from overpopulation

we are killing our one and only earth because of religious bullshit and crap promoting the idea of "family" and being "fruitful and multiply"

there should be tax credits for those who have one or zero kids, and there should be involuntary sterilization for those who have more than two, but no one cares enough abt their own children's future or their grandchildren's future to want to take the unpopular measures needed

only the people who are incapable of doing simple math and planning for the future are having multiple children, but that's what we chose to reward, a planet full of people who can't plan for the future or do math, why? because it makes the preacher happy -- more stupid people having more children means more $$$ in the coffers of the churches which prey on the illogical and the idiotic

[nemo137]

143. Any positive reference to involuntary sterilization makes you an asshole.

Especially given how eugenics programs worked in this country within living memory, suggesting that that's a good idea in any way is either idiotic or inhumane.

And that's just on the practical level, not even getting into philosophical issues about bodily autonomy.

[The Straight Story]

172. The planet will be destroyed with or without us on it

It is nothing more than a rock in space.

[olegramps]

187. "...involuntary sterilization for those who have more then two..."

Sounds like something that I would have heard on a Tea-party site. All you need to complete the sentiment is to add in a few choice slang names for the minorities that you are alluding to.

[and-justice-for-all]

129. I should get a tax credit for NOT having kids...nt

[LWolf]

131. Because it's the job of the populace

to produce more consumers for the future, to keep the economy "growing," to produce more cheap labor and cannon fodder, to produce more christians, republicans, democrats, or whatever particular group wants more power...

Personally, I'd like to turn that upside down. I propose:

An extra-large carbon credit for having zero biological children, whether or not they live with you;

A small credit for one biological child, whether or not they live with you;

No credit for two biological children, whether or not they live with you;

A carbon tax on every child after two, growing larger with each child, whether or not they live with you.

All for biological, not adopted, children.

But then, I'd like to see fewer people infesting the planet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. Because politicians can get lots of votes by giving people money.

[frustrated_lefty]

133. In theory, because kids are an investment.

Their social security taxes, for example, will eventually go towards paying for benefits you receive when you retire. Hopefully, some of the little buggers will grow up to contribute towards discoveries which benefit us all.

If you take a longer term view, it isn't as completely a one-sided deal as it might appear?

[sendero]

138. Because those kids..

.. are going to pay your social security. And the tax credits is a pittance compared to the cost of raising them.

[bluestateguy]

140. Like the old days on DU: the parent wars

nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

141. Because having kids helps maintain the long-run tax base

So fertility should be encouraged.

[flvegan]

142. Because it makes for such GREAT discussion on the internets.

[defendandprotect]

148. Because the right wing has been in charge most recently . . .

[CreekDog]

150. Not so much to encourage people to have kids but so that they have more resources for them

because whatever you think of population growth, every kid deserves to have extra resources devoted to their care once they arrive on this earth.

no kid ever asks to be born.

[TransitJohn]

153. Because people with children vote more reliably than those without.

No proof, just speculation.

[eyeofdelphi]

158. Why do the rich get tax cuts?

Why do businessmen get to write off taking clients out to expensive restaurants? that's not completely neccessary to run a business. why do college students get financial aid or get to write off some of their costs for textbooks and such? you don't HAVE to go to college. there's so many things that our worse in our tax code than us parents getting a tax credit.

[meow2u3]

160. Why not a tax credit for childless people who have pets?

As long as you're a responsible pet owner who has your pets spayed or neutered, you should get a tax credit so you can care for your cat(s) and/or dog(s) without running the risk of going broke and having to give them up to a shelter? There are an increasing number of childless people, or those whose kids are grown and gone (many of whom are disabled), who turn to cats and dogs for companionship, service, and/or support. These people should be able to get a tax credit for those animals.

[tonysam]

164. Because it is in society's interest to have kids.

Kids are the future for any society, and of course having kids should be encouraged by any government.

[RB TexLa]

165. People who make that lifestyle choice want to reward others who do the same.

[ima_sinnic]

170. so people like the Duggars can maximize their huge & selfish sucking of the taxpayers

to populate the already overpopulated planet with more fundy breeders who will soon be coming to "convert" us.

[treestar]

180. It costs money to raise them and they are potential members of the

armed forces.

[Warren DeMontague]

185. So we have more money to take them to restuarants... and on AIRPLANES

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

[olegramps]

188. Perhaps the most equable solution is tax credits for three children.

Many are rightly concerned about over population. However, the problem isn't with the industrialized countries but in the so-called Third World countries. Some industrialized countries have such low birth rate that their is real concern about their future.

I would like to note that the military has for a number of years limited allotments for the first three children. It certainly was an effective incentive for families to limit the number of children that they choose to have. I would think that that would be a reasonable approach that could be applied nationally.

There has been a great deal of discussion about how the wealthy 1% have control of the something like 75% of the total wealth. There is a simple solution to the plight of the working class. When they decide to get off off the ass and unionize they can start getting a fair share of what they produce. When 36% of the working class were unionized they enjoyed the highest standard of living that only required one person to support a family. When the working class organize they will be in a position where they can demand universal health care, stop the hemorrhaging of jobs to out-sourcing, a fair division of the profits and reasonable compensation for executives.

[adamuu]

191. Net gain to social security within 40 years. n/t

[cynatnite]

195. Because feeding the little carpet munchers cost money. n/t