As is stands, parents are able to claim their children as dependents on their tax returns, which lowers their overall tax liability and in effect means that the parents either pay less in taxes or receive a higher return at the end of each year.
Until they reach the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society. They receive public schooling and receive the same benefit from public services that adults do, yet they contribute nothing in return. At the point that they reach maturity and are gainfully employed and paying taxes, they become a functioning member of society.
If a parent decides to have a child, they are making a conscious decision to produce another human being. They could choose to get a sterilization surgery, use birth control, or abort the pregnancy (assuming they don’t live in a backwards state that’s banned it). Yet even if they decide to have 15 children, the rest of society has to foot the bill for their poor decisions until the child reaches adulthood.
By increasing taxes on parents instead of reducing them, you not only incentivize safe sex and abortion, but you shift the burden of raising a child solely to the individuals who are responsible for the fact that that child exists.
I am a strong advocate for social programs: Single-payer healthcare, welfare programs, low-income housing, etc, but for adults who in turn contribute what they can. A child should only be supported by the individuals who created it.
Children will (on average) be a net-positive/taxed in the future, therefore societies incentivize having children by letting parents pay less taxes. Also, children will completely form the society of the future, so different groups in a society having children is probably a good idea for a more diverse society in the future. As having children is expensive it is probably a good idea to let less wealthier people also have children, as you probably don’t want to just exclude them.
you’re right, it’s the parents that aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, not Fortune 100 companies or billionaires /s
I would say the problem is not in taxing, it’s in the school system. Kids used to start working at 14, now they study until 30. You have “adults” that are basically still children from tax perspective. We need less school (the stuff we learn, not to ever use it in life again…) and more work.
I don’t really have a problem with adults that study until they’re 30, as long as they come out of school being an expert in a field that’s actually useful to society. A medical student just out of high school who goes into pre-med, medical school, then residency will be close to that age by the time they finish their education. Somebody who hops from major to major and eventually gets a degree in philosophy when they’re 30… maybe find something that’s actually useful first. If you’re working and contributing and decide you want to study art history for your own personal edification, go for it.
Your argument doesn’t really make sense though. If benefits should be limited to the ones who can pay taxes, why have taxes! They could just pay for what they need.
Taxing is a community safety net to make sure everybody gets what they need, even individuals who can’t contribute. What you are describing sounds more like a social insurance where only people who have contributed can be covered (similar to pension)
Having taxes ensures that all members of society get the same benefit. Lets say for instance that it costs the fire department $5000 to put out a house fire for a low-income family. My income is higher, so I pay more taxes toward the fire department, but they still get the same response to their house fire that I would. That’s exactly how it should be.
Now lets say that same low-income family has 8 kids. They don’t need to have 8 kids (they don’t need to have any), and regardless of whether they’re a low-income household or part of the 1%, chances are a good number of those children won’t grow up to produce a net gain to the rest of society. The parents both work entry-level jobs, so they’re at least productive members of society. The 8 kids are still in school and produce no immediate benefit to society. Why should I be paying for their children when their children produce no benefit to any of the taxpayers; they could have just as easily aborted every pregnancy and not only would they be better able to support themselves, there would be 8 less non-productive individuals for the taxpayers to support. Once those 8 kids start working, then yes, my taxes should go to help support their healthcare, housing, food, etc; they might be the person making my sandwich, or they might be the person doing my brain surgery. The point is that they are contributing what they can.
Anyone who is productive in the world should receive the same social benefits as any other person who is productive in their same societal group. Children are not productive. They have the possibility of being productive, but not until they reach maturity. Until they reach that point, the only people who should be paying for them are the ones who made the poor decision to bring them into the world in the first place.
It is true that before reaching adulthood children are a financial burden for society, but primarily they are a financial burden on parents. Tax breaks help make it more affordable and a viable option for more than just the wealthy.
But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage. Some people are not responsible enough to be good parents, or otherwise are not in the right circumstances where it would make sense. But generally children are an investment in society’s future, and very much worth the costs of supporting with projected future contributions.
But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage.
This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but you’re absolutely right. Having children is the most selfish act possible. Nobody on the planet asked to come into existence; we’re all here because of a choice our parents made. Regardless of your place in the world, no human experiences their entire life without pain and suffering. I am personally very happy with my life, but there have of course been ups and downs. By producing a child, you’re guaranteeing that another person will experience suffering and sadness. Nobody lives forever, so you’re condemning another person to death.
Having children (to some degree, not unchecked) is necessary for the human race to continue to exist, but the idea that producing and raising a child is a selfless act is as far from the truth as you can get. If you consider a theoretical world where everyone was suddenly sterile, the human race would cease to exist within a very short time. A lot of other things would cease to exist: Sadness and heartbreak, murder, rape, war, terrorism, poverty, starvation.
One might argue that brief periods of happiness give a reason for continuing human existence, but is this really true? Most people, if they’re lucky, go through life in a neutral state; we might not be happy or sad, but we’re “doing okay.” If suffering is a -1 and happiness is a +1, with everyday life being a 0, then every person is going to ultimately average out to somewhere around zero. By having a child, you’re making an irrevocable choice that you want another human being to live a life that’s either neutral to a point that’s statistically insignificant or predominantly negative, and you’re making this choice because something in your brain is telling you to. It’s the epitome of selfishness.
