Tax the Childless - lower taxes for parents

[Chowder Head]

There has been a discussion about the suggestion by a columnist to raise taxes on the childless and reduce the one for parents with kids. Thoughts?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... eople.html

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/07/pf/taxe ... ?hpt=hp_t3

[GeoBQn]

Didn't they try this in Romania under Ceausescu?

[Marianne]

Have you family allocation ? We have here. It's 200 € per month by children, since his birth to the day where he left the house. This is a good things.

[salex]

Have you family allocation ? We have here. It's 200 € per month by children, since his birth to the day where he left the house. This is a good things.

No, because that would be socialist.. instead we have the 1000 tax credit, ie 1000 off any taxes owed standard deduction on income taxes (phases out at higher incomes...)

Every child that you claim as a dependent on your tax return automatically reduces your taxable income by $3,800 as of 2012. This means if you are taxed at 15 percent, each kid saves you $570 in taxes ($3,800 x 0.15).

SO... say 1570/kid = about $130/kid/year but it isn't an allocation-- because that would be evil socialism... :naughty:

(I think there are some other things, but I'm one of those childless people they are wanting to tax, so I don't know)

.ehow.com/about_5218912_federal-tax-deduction-children.html#ixzz2yEPmLtS1

More confusing stuff...

irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit

[mypsychoticself]

In general I'd say it's a good idea, since kids are so expensive. But I'd also like to see the government invest in things like childcare for low income families, pre-K education, etc, rather than just cutting taxes. I also wish we had paid parental leave, rather than the current system.

[Childless]

Hell, no! That's a horrible thing to do to someone who either chooses to be childless or is that way due to circumstance beyond their control. If you want to give tax breaks to people with children, fine. Cut some of our obscene military spending to pay for it. But to raise taxes on a group of people to pay for others' choices, I can't get on board with that. I have a child and yes, he is expensive, but it was MY decision to have him. Not my single, childless co-worker's decision. Therefore, I should make the sacrifice in income to raise him, not my co-worker. I wouldn't accept having to pay higher taxes so my childless friends can pay less and have that extra money to take kick ass vacations or do other things people without children like to do, why should I expect them to pay for my desired lifestyle?

[Emkay]

Playing devil's advocate here- there is a not-so-tiny portion of our population who would love to be parents, but for whatever reason (think of the many, many, many people who struggle with infertility) cannot be parents- or even just not right now. 'Oops. Didn't get pregnant this IVF cycle? Guess you'll be in that higher tax bracket next year.' REALLY? How much harder would that make an already difficult situation?

(Not to mention, I don't want to be punished for waiting until I'm more financially settled to have a child. Might as well pop 'em out like the fundies then, huh?)

Edit to add- this is all in response to having higher taxes for the childless.

[polecat]

I can understand the backlash, and it does feel punitive. Generally speaking, though, I'm ok with paying more taxes for things that go towards the children and their futures. I don't see this so much as parents getting a free ride as much as I see it as giving kids a solid foundation for their tomorrows. A stepping stone towards our collective future, if you will.

ETA: I'd be even more behind cutting some of the expenditures, like corporate welfare, to cut taxes across the board. And also very much for paid family leave and other family-friendly policies.

[louisa05]

Hell, no! That's a horrible thing to do to someone who either chooses to be childless or is that way due to circumstance beyond their control. If you want to give tax breaks to people with children, fine. Cut some of our obscene military spending to pay for it. But to raise taxes on a group of people to pay for others' choices, I can't get on board with that. I have a child and yes, he is expensive, but it was MY decision to have him. Not my single, childless co-worker's decision. Therefore, I should make the sacrifice in income to raise him, not my co-worker. I wouldn't accept having to pay higher taxes so my childless friends can pay less and have that extra money to take kick ass vacations or do other things people without children like to do, why should I expect them to pay for my desired lifestyle?

Yeah...my husband and I have been together seven years, married nearly five. Childless.

No kick ass vacations. Never. Not one. Not even a honeymoon. We had a landmark last year by spending three nights away without staying with friends or family.

Some of us our childless because we don't have the financial resources to pay for children and think it is not responsible to have them anyway and expect others to pay for it. So now we are supposed to pay higher taxes on top of that? :angry-banghead:

[Childless]

Not to mention you'd be pushing higher taxes on the older generations who have already raised their children and are now childless. Yeah, let's raise taxes on the retired set who already have to decide between medicine and food. This is a wonderful idea! :roll:

[Mecca]

I read about this last week, and I find the thought of this infuriating. Seriously infuriating. Generally speaking, I am perfectly fine with paying taxes into programs that my family will never utilize for the betterment of society and helping families in need, but sticking it to me and my husband even further and penalizing us simply because I have crap ovaries and choose to not expand my family? Yeah, no. We already do pay more into taxes than most because we do not have kids and do not get tax credit for that. I get kids are expensive, but why am I responsible for helping to raise your child? A child you willingly had? Having a child is not mandatory. It is a choice.

I think it is nonsense to think just because someone has no children they are rolling in the money and can easliy pay more. Childless people struggle too, and they get left out and do not qualify for many programs simply because of that. It is bad enough I get judged on my family size by family, friends, co-workers.....you name it. Now the idea of this? Yeah, thanks for making the childless feel even more ostracized. If anything, I should get a credit for not adding to the over population problem.

[Mecca]

Sorry to vent, but the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Basically, there are people now wanting to penalize women monetarily for choices they control or have no control of. That just seems rather messed up to me.

[mypsychoticself]

Sorry to vent, but the more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Basically, there are people now wanting to penalize women monetarily for choices they control or have no control of. That just seems rather messed up to me.

I don't really see how this is penalizing women. Even if you disagree with it (and I understand why some people do), it seems like a pretty gender neutral idea.

[TressieThales]

Parents already get a tax break for each child under the age of 18. That's enough. There is no need to "punish" financially those of us who by choice or circumstance do not have a minor child.

[Mecca]

I don't really see how this is penalizing women. Even if you disagree with it (and I understand why some people do), it seems like a pretty gender neutral idea.

Well, you cannot get a baby unless a woman births it, so yeah, it is essentially putting more pressure on women in this area. And if a woman cannot birth a child or does want to, she gets to pay more while living in a society that already pays her less for the work she does. That is my take, anyway.

Sure, a male can get the same tax penalty as well, but let us be honest here, men do not get the same backlash from society for not having kids like many women do. So many childless women are seen as less than and judged simply because they cannot have children or do not want them. There has to be something wrong with us. My husband never hears much about us being childless, but I sure do. If I had a nickle for every time I was called selfish or some other bullshit, I would have a bag of nickels to swing at someone's head.

[fundiefan]

Saying 'it's for the kids' is a cop out, in my opinion. The world does not exist to revovle around kids.

I have none. It is not my responsibility to pay for yours, or anyone elses. I already do that with my taxes and I don't care. A more solid future society is worth it. But, to pay more than those who choose to have children? Seriously? Who the hell even thinks of that shit?

I'm single. I don't get shit for tax breaks. On what planet is it a conceivable idea for me to pay for someone else's kid?

This actually infuriates me quite a bit.

[Arete]

I remember this got floated out as an idea in Germany at least a decade ago, and it is a fairly old canard of a certain conservative subset (not necessarily fundie). Oh yeah, and the original idea behind it is definitely punitive.

It goes something like this: if you didn't have children, you were basically a selfish bitch/bastard, didn't want to grow up, and nursing homes cost money dontchakow? You have selfishly refused to provide yourself with a caretaker in your old age, as well as society with replacement taxpayers. Therefore, you should pay punitive tax during your working childless years to help offset the cost of the mess you made by not reproducing.

The Right loves it because it punishes the immoral hussies/ men children who refused to do their duty. The Left loves it because you are a total waste of oxygen if you don't roll over for every tax increase that has the phrase "for the children" attached to it. And once again, people who don't have children have to declare what part of that particular caste system they fall into. You'll get understanding if infertility is in play, but a choice? You just don't want children? You need to be punished.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I'm fine with paying for the future generation of my country.

But I would prefer to do it by funding programs that provide for those children's educations, nutrition, that sort of thing, as little citizens. I.e., let's expand the social welfare net for all comers (including programs aimed at children) but let's also acknowledge that children are the future of the country and so they are not the exclusive property of their parents, at the same time.

This would mean a system where we all (childless and not) pay the tax, and it goes directly to services children themselves are using (schools, etc). If that takes burdens off of parents, great - ideally it would neutralize some of the inequalities caused by being born to poor vs. rich parents, by funding a service that everyone uses. In the long term, the "but I don't have a kid, where's my money?" question would be answered by "you WERE a kid, and went to school (or at least had the option), that was your money."

I don't feel bad about paying taxes for schools because I myself went to public schools, so that's when "I got mine." I don't feel bad about paying for the social welfare net because just like insurance, it's there for me too. ALL adults should pay the tax, and ALL kids can benefit from the service it pays for.

Perhaps it's a slight semantic difference, but there it is.

[louisa05]

Well, you cannot get a baby unless a woman births it, so yeah, it is essentially putting more pressure on women in this area. And if a woman cannot birth a child or does want to, she gets to pay more while living in a society that already pays her less for the work she does. That is my take, anyway.

Sure, a male can get the same tax penalty as well, but let us be honest here, men do not get the same backlash from society for not having kids like many women do. So many childless women are seen as less than and judged simply because they cannot have children or do not want them. There has to be something wrong with us. My husband never hears much about us being childless, but I sure do. If I had a nickle for every time I was called selfish or some other bullshit, I would have a bag of nickels to swing at someone's head.

Hell, we'd probably have enough nickels to be able to afford to raise a child. Assuming I get one for crap like "It must be so nice to never have to do laundry" and "I can't imagine not knowing how to do stuff" and "I bet you sleep in every weekend" or the above mentioned "kick ass vacations" we are supposedly taking. We should probably get a nickel for that one, Mecca. Especially since one couple I know who have four kids, live in a house paid for by her father, get formula from WIC and food stamps just took a kick ass tropical resort vacation that my husband and I will never be able to afford.

[polecat]

Saying 'it's for the kids' is a cop out, in my opinion. The world does not exist to revovle around kids.

I have none. It is not my responsibility to pay for yours, or anyone elses. I already do that with my taxes and I don't care. A more solid future society is worth it. But, to pay more than those who choose to have children? Seriously? Who the hell even thinks of that shit?

I'm single. I don't get shit for tax breaks. On what planet is it a conceivable idea for me to pay for someone else's kid?

This actually infuriates me quite a bit.

I didn't actually say "it's for the kids," if this was aimed in my direction. I said that for me, generally speaking, I AM ok with paying more in taxes for kids. I didn't go to public schools, and my kids don't go to public schools, but I pay taxes to support public schools and would happily vote in an increase to improve public schools. Why? Because I feel that it's for the greater good. Just because I am personally not getting direct benefit from it (atm), the greater society IS benefiting from it -- a more educated society benefits us all both directly and indirectly.

I'm not actually sure how I feel about raising taxes on childless/child-free people. It feels punitive (as I initially stated). I'd be more likely to support measures that offer broader protections to all kinds of families (i.e., family friendly policies, enhanced family leave -- not just paternity or maternity leave but family leave to care for partners, parents, etc.) while cutting back on the crap (corporate welfare, etc.) so that we can all have better tax breaks.

[Childless]

Hell, we'd probably have enough nickels to be able to afford to raise a child. Assuming I get one for crap like "It must be so nice to never have to do laundry" and "I can't imagine not knowing how to do stuff" and "I bet you sleep in every weekend" or the above mentioned "kick ass vacations" we are supposedly taking. We should probably get a nickel for that one, Mecca. Especially since one couple I know who have four kids, live in a house paid for by her father, get formula from WIC and food stamps just took a kick ass tropical resort vacation that my husband and I will never be able to afford.

I didn't say every childless person takes kick ass vacations. However, if you got a tax break at the expense of parents and had extra cash lying around, you might decide to take a kick ass vacation or eat out more often or go to a concert or go to the movie theater more often, etc. My point was that my decision to have my son was my decision and so I must take responsibility for making that lifestyle choice. Just as people without children may choose to go out more often or go on vacation. That is their decision and should not be financed by others.

[Childless]

I remember this got floated out as an idea in Germany at least a decade ago, and it is a fairly old canard of a certain conservative subset (not necessarily fundie). Oh yeah, and the original idea behind it is definitely punitive.

It goes something like this: if you didn't have children, you were basically a selfish bitch/bastard, didn't want to grow up, and nursing homes cost money dontchakow? You have selfishly refused to provide yourself with a caretaker in your old age, as well as society with replacement taxpayers. Therefore, you should pay punitive tax during your working childless years to help offset the cost of the mess you made by not reproducing.

The Right loves it because it punishes the immoral hussies/ men children who refused to do their duty. The Left loves it because you are a total waste of oxygen if you don't roll over for every tax increase that has the phrase "for the children" attached to it. And once again, people who don't have children have to declare what part of that particular caste system they fall into. You'll get understanding if infertility is in play, but a choice? You just don't want children? You need to be punished.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear that any right wingers would support this. What happened to their mantra about lower taxes and personal responsibility?

[Talitha Cumi]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised to hear that any right wingers would support this. What happened to their mantra about lower taxes and personal responsibility?

IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are Republican)

[apple1]

Not to mention you'd be pushing higher taxes on the older generations who have already raised their children and are now childless. Yeah, let's raise taxes on the retired set who already have to decide between medicine and food. This is a wonderful idea! :roll:

Eggggggggggzacklee. :shock:

[Mecca]

Hell, we'd probably have enough nickels to be able to afford to raise a child. Assuming I get one for crap like "It must be so nice to never have to do laundry" and "I can't imagine not knowing how to do stuff" and "I bet you sleep in every weekend" or the above mentioned "kick ass vacations" we are supposedly taking. We should probably get a nickel for that one, Mecca. Especially since one couple I know who have four kids, live in a house paid for by her father, get formula from WIC and food stamps just took a kick ass tropical resort vacation that my husband and I will never be able to afford.

I hear you, and I am sorry you have to hear that nonsense too. It is amazing how many just do not get that you can be productive in your life and in society without birthing babies. Never do laundry? What? Do they think we never wear clothes or have so much extra cash we only wear something once or have a laundry attendant because of all this "extra cash" we are rolling in? Ignorance.

The older I get, the worse the comments are. Here is something I heard just last week. "Aw, Mecca, it is so sad that you are now in your forties and the chance to be able to experience what real love feels like has past for you." Now, I am not a violent person, but sweet baby cheeses did it take everything I had not to fly across the table. Yeah, I am pretty sure I have and know what real love is. It is called my husband. It is called loving myself for who I am and the choices I make. And trust me, and you know this too by being an educator, just because you have a child does not mean that is a good thing and makes one a better person. I worked in Child Advocacy. There are lots of crappy people that have children and do horrible things to them. Having a child does not give one magical powers. Hell, my fundie parents that believed they should go forth and multiply A LOT where not good parents and most of their children have nothing to do with them. Chances are they will not have anyone to care for them as they get older even though they had a lot of children.

Sigh. I could go on and on, but so many people are just rude about this issue. They do not take in account how it feels for us to be talked to in such a degrading manner. And it is degrading.