Tax the Childless

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/tax_credits_and_children_parents_should_pay_lower_taxes_and_childless_people.html

by grej • 12 years ago

18 53 12 years ago

slate.com

georgemcbay• 12 years ago

(onion.com) would be more appropriate for this nonsense idea.

anonymoushn• 12 years ago

We already tax the single. It would make sense to move that burden to the childless.

TulliusCicero5• 12 years ago

It kind of already works this way in western Europe with the various child-rearing subsidies.

lutusp6• 12 years ago

Yeah, great idea. The single most important world problem we face is overpopulation. Why not make it easier to have children than it already is? Why not tax those who made the right choice and give the money to those who made the wrong one?

The Chinese have the right idea -- they encourage one child per family (an idea that works better in cities than in the countryside), against substantial public ignorance and resistance. If we adopted the opposite policy, we would once again show ourselves to be far behind the times.

thaumasiotes• 12 years ago

they encourage one child per family (an idea that works better in cities than in the countryside)

it is my impression that the specific form that "works better" takes is that it's extremely difficult to enforce in the countryside.

lutusp6• 12 years ago

Yes, that's right. It's a matter of enforcement as well as a long, difficult-to-break tradition of large families among farm owners/workers.

baddox• 12 years ago

The single most important world problem we face is overpopulation.

Citation needed.

lutusp6• 12 years ago

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

Quote: "Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year."

I invite anyone to try to dismiss the fact that 3.1 million children starve to death each year.

cube_yellow3• 12 years ago

The single most important world problem we face is overpopulation.

Bullshit. We'd need over 100 billion people on Earth for that to be anywhere near a sane thought. See, e.g.: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/09/overp...

lutusp6• 12 years ago

We'd need over 100 billion people on Earth for that to be anywhere near a sane thought.

You know, it can't hurt to get in touch with reality from time to time:

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

Quote: "Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year."

We have seven billion people on the planet, and according to the UN, almost one billion of those people aren't being fed adequately. So we should have 100 billion people? By what cockeyed reasoning?

dllthomas3• 12 years ago

"they encourage one child per family"

Can we say two? Would still lead to a population decrease over time, and given the risks my brothers and I took growing up I'd want some redundancy...

throwawayaway• 12 years ago

is this not already the case? http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit in effect, i don't see any real difference, the author is just asking for more of the same.

the author also assumes more children are a good thing. i think in the future people who look at china's one child policy as barbarism will change their mind.

greenyoda• 12 years ago

The child tax credit is only one of the tax benefits that parents get. Here are two others:

- They get a deduction for each child (since they're dependents). This came to $3800 per child on the 2012 tax form (that amount is exempt from taxes).

- If your filing status is "head of household" (e.g., you have dependents), you pay lower tax rates than a single person.

Plus, there are similar benefits on state income taxes.

donutdan4114• 12 years ago

I'm not sure why government taxes should care whether someone has kids or not, it is your choice. If you can't afford to have kids, you probably shouldn't have kids.

It's easy to be in a painful situation and come to a conclusion "Things should work this way because that would benefit me". There are other things the government should do, such as tax breaks for students, and people with student loans - fostering growth and a successful youthful population is very nice. Tax breaks for people with a highschool education and better grades. Tax breaks for people who do community service, etc, etc...

TulliusCicero5• 12 years ago

"I'm not sure why government taxes should care whether someone has kids or not, it is your choice. If you can't afford to have kids, you probably shouldn't have kids."

Because having kids benefits everyone. It's an integral societal good with a staggeringly high individual cost. There's a reason western European countries give such generous benefits to parents like lengthy maternity/paternity leaves.

vezzy-fnord• 12 years ago

Whether or not it is an "integral societal good" depends on the child's upbringing and its eventual contribution to society, neither of which are guaranteed to be positive. In fact, by doing this, you would be encouraging more people (including ones who are ill suited) to raise children merely to pay less taxes, and consequently have more numbers, but less utility.

nextweek2• 12 years ago

Because having kids benefits everyone

This is where economies are built. There is a premise that growth is dependent on population expansion. I think that assumption needs looking at in terms of standards of living and the future.

People are living longer but not contributing as much to society. As automation continues to take away low end jobs, we are going to have more people doing less.

We are moving from the r to the K side of r/K selection theory [1]. Our economies need to shift from quantity to quality. This is naturally happening but governments are trying to pump up growth with immigration and benefits for parents.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

cube_yellow3• 12 years ago

it is your choice

It's my choice to remain a student, and to do well. It's my choice to do community service, etc. etc... what's your point?

There are few things, if any, as existentially important as creating the next generation.

mavdi• 12 years ago

As a parent all I can say is: What a load of shite. Enjoy your childless freedom, you have made the right choice. A child brings little joy to your life with eternal stress and worry and pain and sleepless nights and oh did I mention worry?

TulliusCicero5• 12 years ago

...this is exactly why policies like this are a good idea. Just looking at the costs in terms of time, money, and stress, having kids is a pretty irrational decision, so it's no surprise that in modern developed nations, birthrates are pretty low. Sub-replacement birthrates are bad for society. But we can choose to compensate with government policy.

ne0codex• 12 years ago

Why was this posted here? What's the relevancy?

Eyalush• 12 years ago

I do pay more taxes than those with children. I take the extra cash amassed that I'm not spending on a family and I invest it or I spend it. Both add tax revenue. Across my investment properties I pay 35K in property taxes annually, then I pay income tax on income generated from rents across multiple units. I'll also pay sales taxes on those buildings when I sell them. Lastly, because I do not have any dependents, my tax bracket is set squarely in "are you mad?!?" range. I pay a lot of taxes.

coin• 12 years ago

Or perhaps tax those with children, since they draw more public services. Having children is (most of the time) a choice. If you don't have the financial resources to support offspring, the don't have them. Note: I have (and chose to have) two daughters. My financial situation was one of the inputs into the decision.

TulliusCicero5• 12 years ago

"If you don't have the financial resources to support offspring, the don't have them."

This is exactly the problem. People are choosing, quite wisely, to not have kids, so our birth rates are sub-replacement. That's bad, so we need to incentivize people to have more of them. Raising children is a pretty classic externality: benefits accrue to society because we all benefit from continued human existence, but the costs are borne by individual parents.

notatoad• 12 years ago

People are choosing, quite wisely, to not have kids, so our birth rates are sub-replacement

maybe for your chosen social group, but global population growth is about 1.2% per year.

randunel• 12 years ago

In Europe, this is already implemented. Parents get subsidies and cash money for every child they have, while childless hard working citizens get nothing. This idea is not new, it's already in place :P

Aloha• 12 years ago

It's not my job to pay for others children, not thru direct taxation. I already pay a whole bunch of incidental socitial costs, and I'm OK with that - It's part of being a good citizen.

I chose not to breed - I have bad genetic stock, I don't think its wise for me to contribute my portion forward.

cube_yellow3• 12 years ago

Children are a social benefit.

If not through taxes, then how?

mullingitover• 12 years ago

Dumbest thing I've read this week, and I read the comments on Yahoo News articles.

Canada• 12 years ago

Anyone who says "I and everyone else in my circumstance should be taxed more" should just shut up unless the post also includes a scan of a big cheque demonstrating some voluntary contribution to the cause. Otherwise it's nothing more than demanding others pay.

jaunkst2• 12 years ago

Wow, yeah. Let's give them a living income too, so they can spend more time with their kids. Might as well give them a free iphone for every child. Who needs to be educated when you can pop out kids and complain about those who break their back going to work so we can one day start to pay for an imaginary retirement. Accountability has become a joke in america. I will be programming till I'm 100 years old at that rate. which I would want to do anyways but that's not the point. I work to hard for such nonsense. if were going to adopt socialism then let's go all the way and enforce Plato's republic. I'll opt in to be a philosopher and not have kids. We can all raise everyone else's kids in an equal society.

dkarapetyan• 12 years ago

We already do this.

zwass• 12 years ago

I'm still trying to understand why anyone would want to encourage population expansion in a world with nearly 8 billion people.

Is it tied into the general western notion that growth of any kind is always good? That more children will raise the GDP?

Are people afraid of what happens when the Social Security pyramid begins to crumble?

The author only gives us this unsatisfying snippet: > a steady stream of barely postpubescent brainiacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive

lutusp6• 12 years ago

I'm still trying to understand why anyone would want to encourage population expansion in a world with nearly 8 billion people.

That's easy to answer. Imagine you own a factory. The factory has two doors. In one door comes customers. In the other door comes workers.

* If you can get more customers competing for limited products in your showroom, you can raise prices and become richer.

* If you can get more workers competing for limited positions on your factory floor, you can reduce wages and become richer.

* In every way, population increase enriches the owners of (a) capital, and (b) means of production.

So, exactly why would you not argue for a higher population? And why would you not fight birth control, contraception and abortion, education, voting rights and gender equality for women, and sex education in the schools?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the conservative agenda just happens to fight for unlimited population growth, both here and abroad.

bdcravens3• 12 years ago

This would get crushed under bureaucracy, as there would need to be a ton of exceptions. Males with Cystic Fibrosis have a 98% infertility rate. So you'd essentially be taxing someone based on their genetic makeup.

jaunkst2• 12 years ago

Sure, but since were giving money away why not adopt.

bdcravens3• 12 years ago

Perhaps the underlying reason for not being able to have kids makes adoption a poor choice. In CF, for example, the average life expectancy is about 40.

bdcravens3• 12 years ago

Also, wouldn't this unfairly punish those in gay marriages? Adoption is of course an option, but I'd speculate there's a much higher rate of childlessness in gay vs. straight marriages.

TulliusCicero5• 12 years ago

Adoption and surrogates/donors are both options in gay marriages.

lutusp6• 12 years ago

So you'd essentially be taxing someone based on their genetic makeup.

As well as their common sense (for those who choose not to have children). :)

fallinghawks• 12 years ago

She can take money out of my pocket only if she is required to get my approval before having a child.

TelmoMenezes2• 12 years ago

Genius. I can't think of a better idea than incentivising people to reproduce more and as soon as possible. This is exactly what the world needs.

Some people might say that this is a puritanical and unacceptable meddling of the state in deeply personal choices, but I say fuck them! If we play our cards right we can evolve into being social insects in less than one century.

dingaling• 12 years ago

I can't think of a better idea than incentivising people to reproduce more and as soon as possible

And for those who can't...? Just keep penalising them to teach them a lesson?

For 30 years I had no intimate or sexual relations with anyone. Not my choice by any means, but this proposal would have financially punished me because no-one else wanted to have a relationship with me. Thanks! A double-whammy of unhappiness.

And what about the gay community?

What about sterile people?

I am in a relationship now, with children, but strongly oppose this idea.

TelmoMenezes2• 12 years ago

Of course. I was being sarcastic.

pan692• 12 years ago

Here's an idea. Rather than taxing the childless maybe you should get a tax break from taking care/raising children made by someone else instead? I.e. the last thing this planet needs is new people.

lupinglade• 12 years ago

Childless couples already pay tax for school and healthcare for the kids of others.

ulam2• 12 years ago

You telling me that age of having a child should be dictated by the government?

Tax the Childless

Related Stories