Tax the Childless - lower taxes for parents

[16strong]

Call me really cynical, but how many people will now have kids just for the tax breaks, and then proceed to abuse/neglect them so that said kids don't cut into the extra money they're getting?

[Arete]

IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are Republican)

^That. And making sure we all conform to their idea of responsible citizenship trump even tax breaks.

Besides, how else to guarantee we keep reproducing the Master Race? If the childless are not punished, they will usher in the demographic winter.

[Mecca]

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?

I could totally see the ultra religious conservatives liking this idea. It would be a way to punish people for disobeying God and not going forth and multiplying little taxpayers.

[polecat]

I could totally see the ultra religious conservatives liking this idea. It would be a way to punish people for disobeying God and not going forth and multiplying little taxpayers.

Which brings up a whole other point -- will these tax breaks be for ALL parents or only straight, married parents? Hmmm ...

[FJismyheadship]

And what if a child has two involved parents who don't live together? Do both get the tax break, or only one? Does it count if you are a grandparent who is raising their grandchild?

[salex]

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?

Social engineering isn't social engineering when the republicans do it....

[Toothfairy]

[link=][/link]

Call me really cynical, but how many people will now have kids just for the tax breaks, and then proceed to abuse/neglect them so that said kids don't cut into the extra money they're getting?

They do that now. And this is just a way to try and force people to have kids :violin:

[Trynn]

They better not raise my taxes. I'm already struggling to feed myself and keep a roof over my head. There's a REASON I can't have a kid right now.

I too don't mind my tax money going to things I won't use (except for all these god damn pointless wars). But I feel like this idea is taking it way to far.

[Nerthe]

This indeed exists in Germany. Every adult over 25 who is paying taxes has to pay 0.25 % more into statutory nursing care insurance than someone who has at least one child. This is since 2005.

The background is that every employee pays into statutory nursing care insurance from which the state pays the pension for the elderly. If you have a child (no matter if adopted or not) you contribute in to the future nursing care insurance and so you have to pay less.

And then, for every single kid you have, you get child benefits from the government (I think for the first two it's 160 € per month, for the third it is 190 € and it gets higher the more kids you have). There is also an option of getting tax benefits for kids instead of the child benefits but that is usually not an option for the normal family, it just makes sense if you earn a lot of money and have to pay a lot of taxes. (Very controversial topic over here)

[Mama Mia]

Call me really cynical, but how many people will now have kids just for the tax breaks, and then proceed to abuse/neglect them so that said kids don't cut into the extra money they're getting?

My answer would be none. Or maybe a few very stupid ones. Tax breaks for kids never lower your taxes to the point that it covers the entire expense of raising children, let alone make money. Not to mention that even severely neglected children require some expenditure of energy on the part of the parents.

Just to play devils advocate here :evil: , but the idea isn't that you are paying for someone else's decisions. The idea is that childless people benefit from families that do have children. I believe the concern is that there is a huge population of baby boomers who are rapidly aging. There are fewer people in subsequent generations. You need younger people to provide direct services for the elderly ---Doctors, nurses, housekeepers/gardeners, Staff at assisted living facilities, etc. you also need younger workers to fill all the ordinary jobs that society is dependent on.

I don't know how I feel about this proposal , but since I'm 99% sure it's not going to pass as presented! I'm not going to worry about it.

[moodygirl86]

Crap like "I can't imagine not knowing how to do stuff"

Colour me confused, why would not having kids mean you didn't know how to do stuff...?

I think our Tories have suggested this kind of thing too in the past. Well, they can raise my taxes if they want but I'm not having sprogs and no fucker is going to make me. I don't care if that does make me childish.

[lilwriter85]

We all know that NieNie's asshole husband Christian Nielson would support higher taxes for childless people.

[GolightlyGrrl]

We all know that NieNie's asshole husband Christian Nielson would support higher taxes for childless people.

I can see Chris Jeub being all for this, too.

[Mecca]

We all know that NieNie's asshole husband Christian Nielson would support higher taxes for childless people.

Yep. And knowing Christian, he would write a douchey letter about it all.

To be honest, I could see a lot of the families we talk about supporting something like this. Weird thing is, half their children are not allowed to be part of the system simply because they were born female.

[GolightlyGrrl]

This is one question I have. If the childless are going to be taxed more to help the parents, do we get any say in how they spend it?

[slickcat79]

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.

Not only that, there are quite a few tax breaks and credits for children or things relating to them. Beyond the dependent deduction, there's a Child Tax Credit for most families. You get a credit for the year your child is born. There are credits for child care expenses and education expenses for your child, and probably more that I'm not even aware of. Now, does that cover the cost of raising a child? Not even close. Could those tax credits stand to be extended in some cases? Definitely. But there are a lot of tax-related benefits to having children already in existence. Then you consider the fact that there are many taxpayer funded (or partially funded) programs that will only directly benefit families with children, like public schools, WIC and CHIP. I think a better solution would be to reallocate tax revenue to better benefit children rather than to arbitrarily increase taxes for childless people.

[twinmama]

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?

RIGHT!?! We had trouble having children and spent over $20,000 on fertility treatments by the time we finally got pregnant with our twins. Had we not gotten pregnant it would have been a horrific slap in the face to also have to pay for the privilege of suffering from infertility.

[mypsychoticself]

This is one question I have. If the childless are going to be taxed more to help the parents, do we get any say in how they spend it?

Do you get any say in how people generally spend their tax returns?

[twinmama]

Do you get any say in how people generally spend their tax returns?

That's the thing about taxes, you don't get to pay them only if you approve of where the money goes. I'd love to not fund fucking wars left and right, but I can't just not pay 50% of my taxes.

[slickcat79]

This indeed exists in Germany. Every adult over 25 who is paying taxes has to pay 0.25 % more into statutory nursing care insurance than someone who has at least one child. This is since 2005.

The background is that every employee pays into statutory nursing care insurance from which the state pays the pension for the elderly. If you have a child (no matter if adopted or not) you contribute in to the future nursing care insurance and so you have to pay less.

I'm not sure I'm totally understanding. How do they contribute to the future nursing care insurance if they don't pay the extra tax? Because it's assumed their children will pay into it? :?

[usedtobenice]

I think it's because the government assumes the children will take care of the parents when they are old.

As someone who is childfree, I vehemently oppose this tax.

[lemurknits]

My answer would be none. Or maybe a few very stupid ones. Tax breaks for kids never lower your taxes to the point that it covers the entire expense of raising children, let alone make money. Not to mention that even severely neglected children require some expenditure of energy on the part of the parents.

Just to play devils advocate here :evil: , but the idea isn't that you are paying for someone else's decisions. The idea is that childless people benefit from families that do have children. I believe the concern is that there is a huge population of baby boomers who are rapidly aging. There are fewer people in subsequent generations. You need younger people to provide direct services for the elderly ---Doctors, nurses, housekeepers/gardeners, Staff at assisted living facilities, etc. you need younger workers to fill all the ordinary jobs that society is dependent on.

I don't know how I feel about this proposal , but since I'm 99% sure it's not going to pass as presented! I'm not going to worry about it.

But punitive measures don't encourage people to have children, and ignore the reality of paying for, bearing, and raising the child. I'm doing my thesis on the subject of why certain nations have low fertility rates and why some have high fertility rates, and it shows that with birth control women in industrialized nations with sub optimal reproductive climates are just saying no to marriage and children. I don't think that extra taxes on the childless will raise the fertility rate at all.

What does raise the fertility rate? A good economy, cheap daycare, gender equality and male involvement in house and childcare.

[DGayle]

One of my childfree friends posted about this earlier, and her entire comment on it was, and I'll just c/p this, "Your kids will be paying for my social security, so I'm fine chipping in for their care to help them get raised right." I was stunned to see her say that. She's against the ACA and pretty much everything else, but is okay with higher taxes since she's not raising any future-tax-payers to fund her retirement years.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Do you get any say in how people generally spend their tax returns?

Nope, just throwing out the question to be sassy.

[Feberin]

[link=][/link]

They do that now. And this is just a way to try and force people to have kids :violin:

Only really stupid people the tax benefits for having kids don't compare to the actual cost of raising them. And we get a lot of tax benefits because we put way so much for college. My husband actually had less taxable income then our friend who is single without kids despite making almost twice as much. Despite both these things our friend has way more disposable income then us. But I don't really think he should be taxed. I'd prefer an across the board tax for everyone to help improve our school system.

I understand the idea of it but I don't think it's necessary. Even with more people choosing to be childfree in the US we can allow more immigrants in order to get enough workers to cover the aging population. Also does this mean those of us who are young right now will actually be able to get social security one day? Have they fixed it?