Why do we in the US get to deduct more from our taxes for each dependant (child) that we have when more children require more resources from our governments?

Why not give tax breaks to those without children or with one child during childbearing years and tax everyone else for each child after the first?

This isn't the same policy as of the Chinese gvernment. No forced abortions. I wouldn't even suggest our governments pay for abortions, just birth control. If Evangelicals and Catholic don't want to use birth control then they can pay their share.

when i first entered the working world, i realized very quickly that i was being penalized for being responsible- you know, not having a child out of wedlock that i couldnt afford. i didnt expect a pat on the back for this. i was doing it for myself, not for society. but i didnt expect it to work against me, either. seeing coworkers get breaks for latness and days off based on their children, seeing people on public assistance who abuse the system because they've been part of it since day one and feel almost entitled to do so (and i can't really blame them because of how the system is set up). i've had friends who tell me that when they legitimately need public assistance (that all of our tax dollars have gone into so there shouldnt be any shame in it), it's been hard to get because unless you tell them you have kids and you're living on the street, the beaurocracy is unbelievable (and i know part of that for fact from trying to get unemployment)!

all of this to say, that we shouldnt reward people for behavior that puts them outside of their means and penalize those that try to stay within them. there ought to be a more equitable means of taxation.

unfortunately, i do agree with those who are mentioning that the idea of "well-off" people (and i mean both financially and emotionally) are already the ones that tend to have less children. and it doesnt benefit society to have less well-adjusted people (note that i'm not suggesting that having money means that you are more well-adjusted) in the world than those that are not contributing to society.

i don't think that there really is a solution in this discussion. but i think discussion just for discussion's sake is valid as well and may raise awareness of different perspectives for those who are too used to only seeing their own.

I am assuming you support government assistance programs like TANF, correct?

If not, and you are a conservative who in principle think that people of little means with children are not entitled to any government largess, then please correct me.

However, if you support social programs that try to help give children of modest means equal opportunities for education and personal development as children from well-to-do families, then how could you possibly support such an initiative?

Rich families tend not to have more than 2 or 3 children, and are often childless. The families in the United States, in general, with many children tend to be middle class and lower class families. So I just don't understand why putting an extra tax burden on these families is something anyone would want to do, especially for such an esoteric reason as slowing population growth. The population growth of the world due to families that could afford to shoulder this extra tax on children who are having huge families is absolutely insignificant.

Unless this post was satire or sarcasm that I missed, this is exactly the kind of reactionary environmentalism that throws all other values out the window that my original post addressed in the first place. What kind of values does a person need to have to think that a hard-working single mom raising 5 kids deserves to have an extra tax burden put on her, all for the sake of encouraging the U.S. to slow its population growth (especially considering that the contribution of developed countries like the U.S. to unsustainable world population growth is a drop in the bucket)

IF population control advocates had power, that's exactly what they would do. However, population control advocates are largely powerless. It's an unpopular position, and hard to recruit new members.

i dont define myself as anything. i have thoughts, i listen to other people's thoughts. and i form opinions...which are subject to change.

i personally am not calling for anything to put people out on the street- regardless of age or sex. but to address your question and the example of 5 children? i would say that MY idea is that you shouldnt be having children you can't afford in the first place. perhaps people should think before having children. or do you think that people should just have as many children as humanly possible without any thought to their well-being and sustenance? if that's your argument, i'm not sure there's anything left to say.

note also, that i'm speaking in hypotheticals. i have yet to hear something that is an easy solution. if we were going to make any huge changes in the laws for the future, a different standard would have to apply to things that already happened in the past in order to ensure that people in the situation you describe wouldn't be left out in the cold. but i think it's great that at least we are discussing the issue.

If the programs that you mentioned are effective and necessary, then they justify their existance. My questions is how they are paid for. A tax for each child after your first would be a partial way to pay them. I'm not suggesting the poor carry the complete burden for these programs, but a change in the tax code would be a way to get them to think about the financial consequences of having many children, particularily if they were rewarded for NOT have children until later. The question is, which is more motivational, sex or money?

Maybe the tax paid by those with more than one child would pay those with one or no children. Also, this would be a great way to offer a little bit of financial certainty to 18 year olds out in the world for the first time on their own. They could use the money for college if they chose to.

Ummmmm...just a thought. If a large percentage of the people in the US with large families (and large in this thread seems to be defined as more than one child) are poor, what makes you think that taxing them for every child after the first is going to do anything?

There's a reason people are described as poor; they have very little money. What will they pay their taxes with? Produce? What if they use birth control and it fails? How do you propose to penalize people who just have more kids anyway? This ground-breaking, forward-thinking new tax idea will produce a lot of bankrupt poor people and not much else.

you can't do anything about the people who already in this situation. it's unfair to penalize someone that way. but i can see trying to use it in the future as a deterrent to such situations. Trying to put any of these scenarios into play seems pretty unrealistic. But i think it's interesting just to talk about it theoretically. and saying that, i'll say that i think it's unfair to your children and to society to have more children than you can afford. especially in this society that overconsumes as much as it does. my grandmother's generation was appalled by the idea of credit and now we live in a world that does not function without it. this affords people the delusion that they can afford more than they can and live outside of their means. in my perfect world, moderation would exist in most things. why? because why not? who does it hurt? noone. whodoes it help? possibly all of us.

That's a good point regarding taxes and the issue of people who have no kids. I often wonder why I'm taxed for schools, when I have no children who use them, or why I have to take up the extra responsibility at work because someone else had to leave for a child-related problem. I've had to learn to just let go of all that angst and realize that it all evens out in the long run. Schools are needed. I really don't want the next generation to be uneducated. If I get more hours at work, and feel beat up and exhausted over it, I guess so do people who have children - they feel beat up and exhausted too. Sometimes I think it's important to make a happy life for yourself, and to hell with other people. Honestly. What's the old saying about death/taxes being the only things you HAVE to do/pay in life? I say add to it the notion that you also HAVE to be happy in YOUR life, and forget everyone else :)

I think the notion of a potential tax on a potential baby will DEFINITELY make the unwashed masses stop having unprotected sex. I'm sure those trailers will quit rockin' real quick.

@@

And if the whole crux of the argument is the size of the carbon footprint, let's go ahead and give the well-off childless elite more disposable income, so they can buy a vacation house/RV/boat/Harley/cruise/pl­ane trip to Europe/snowmobile. Because, friend, my family of five lives modestly and as environmentally responsibly as we can, and I know childless couples who have houses twice the size of mine plus vacation homes that they heat and cool and fly back and forth between several times a year. Who's really wasting more resources?

I think your argument is flawed. You assume that these children that generate tax breaks for their parents today won't one day be net tax contributors themselves. If everyone stopped having babies tomorrow, how do you think that would effect the economy in 30-40 years?

Put another way, I assume you plan on retiring one day and enjoying the fruits of your labor. Well if the population falls dramatically, who's going to buy your assets to fund your retirement? Who's going to pay the social security and medicare taxes to fund your healthcare?

the answer to your question is that if the social security programs run the way they should theoretically, that i would've paid for myself. that the money i was forced by the government to put into their program, that they said they would manage for me and that they make interest off of would be available for my usage when the time comes. obviously this is not the reality. but we're talking theory not reality here. i dont believe in the faceless youth being responsible for taking care of me as i age. i'm part of a society however. one that has social aspects, that we all purportedly contribute to for the common good.

and for that last time i never said to have everyone stop having kids! the guy who did was the author of the BOOK not the article! (and, not having read the book, i'm not sure if it was a modest proposal or a serious idea he was positing )

sigh...

"Why do we in the US get to deduct more from our taxes for each dependant (child) that we have when more children require more resources from our governments?"

Ummm, because more children become more workers who in turn become more taxpayers, who in turn support people through social welfare programs? Duh. Look at the situation today - there are not enough workers to support the retiring baby boomers.

"Why not give tax breaks to those without children or with one child during childbearing years and tax everyone else for each child after the first?"

Because, clueless, that would be giving an incentive to something that harms the gov't and economy. See point one idiot.

"This isn't the same policy as of the Chinese gvernment. No forced abortions. I wouldn't even suggest our governments pay for abortions, just birth control. If Evangelicals and Catholic don't want to use birth control then they can pay their share."

If you don't use preventive care, do you pay your share for the eventual healthcare costs? You are worse than the useful idiots Stalin spoke of, you're a sheep who would surrender every ounce of freedom and self determination to anyone with a scary statistic and idea to "solve" the problem.

Save planet earth, NEVER reproduce and quit ASAP.

Twit, first of all, the very poor (who often have large families) don't pay taxes, thus taking away a breaj they never had wouldn't make a difference. Second of all, do you really think the absence of a tax break will cure their lack of personal responsibility and get them to consider the consequences of their behavior? Right. I can see you've interacted with such people often.

"Maybe the tax paid by those with more than one child would pay those with one or no children" Jesus Christ, talk about a socialist commie bastard. Right, you steal my money and give it to someone who doesn't have kids just because I have kids. How about we take your money and give it to people with functional brain cells?

You can't be a day over 15 and if you are, you're a sad reflection of the education system in this country.

The poor represent a small percent of America's population. The middle class is the largest segment and it is the group that benefits the most from current tax policies. Eliminating tax deductions for children might encourage the middle class to have smaller families. That is what should be emphasized, not the impact on poor people.

Americans can keep reproducing to their hearts content. They can continue to complain about congestion on the roads, long lines at the movies, higher costs for housing, noise, dirty air, polluted beaches, etc...Or they can decide to be part of the solution instead of the problem and begin to see the benefits of fewer children - less crowds, more open space, cleaner air, more money in their pockets, to name a few. The choice is fairly simple. Humans are blessed (and maybe cursed) with advanced intelligence. They don't need to be ruled by their animal instincts and mindlessly breed. They can think about the consequences of their actions before they act.