David Smith writes:
If I could make one change in the tax code, I would eliminate any benefits for having children. I chose to be single. I chose not to have children. I am appalled to see how much our tax system subsidizes having children. It is welfare, just put forth another way.
I already pay property taxes in my state. Those property taxes are used to pay for schools to educate children that I don’t have. I understand that education is something that benefits society, so I don’t mind.
I feel similarly about programs that pay for medical insurance for children. I do think all children should have medical insurance.
But I don’t think that anyone should receive extra tax benefits because they chose to have children. It was especially annoying to see that Congress offered extra stimulus checks per child last year. Combined with extra exemptions and the earned income tax credit, people with children get huge breaks when it comes to taxes. I don’t think this makes sense and I don’t think it’s fair.
Hey, “children” is the most effective buzzword in the political arena. If you can append that one word to your argument or your legislation you get a huge political boost. To “protect the children” we have censorship, we call a drunk peeing on a bush a sex offender, etc etc. Of course, much of it is hypocrisy because we also try children as young as 9 or 10 as adults for some crimes, and there’s still tens of missions of kids without any health insurance.
I can understand granting the usual income tax dependent exemptions to persons of all ages in a household; as for some of the other government funded “benefits” for children, well whether you like them or not they’re here to stay because it’s political suicide to argue against them.
Eliminate benefits for “kids”? Are you nuts? Children are the only deduction worth having. Every other deduction is negative and bad. To receive deductions you must be sick, owe money or have your house burn down, or worst of all pay exhorbitant state income tax. Children give me some happiness, especially on tax day.
I agree with David’s post. For years, I’ve said the same things to friends with and without children.
There are few breaks for those of us without spouses, children or other “eligible” dependents. It’s almost as if single taxpayers’ contributions are deemed negligible. Really? I disagree.
But, I do agree with JBruce – appending “children” or “child” to any statement gives it automatic kudos in the socio-political arena.
Until changes are made, I’ll continue to balk at my single person’s penance.
Hey! Somebody else who agrees with me! I’ve been making this case for years, and everybody seems to think I’m a child hating nutcase. (I like to think I’m not.)
The choice to remain ‘single’ is personal and without the responsibility of others except self. That is a choice of that individual and should be respected. But our lives, all of society, depend on families and the stability of the family. To promote tranquility, propersity and social gains, society has chosen to form governments to that purpose. These United States was formed to promote that as well as the right of an individual to be a recluse and self-sufficient. If it was not for families, and procreation, our society would have failed long ago as would mankind.
The writer expresses the dissatisfaction with ‘tax benefits for children’. I challenge the writer to envision living in society without children. Some families are not as well off as others, but in America We the People believe all should be given as even an opportunity as possible, within civilized society bounds, to be all they want to be.
Lots of government programs are built around ‘children’, those present and those expected in the future. Social Security is dependant on the next generation to provide the funds for the future (however bleek it is for them to reap any of the benefits). Our military services benefit from strong family ties for its leadership and those who wish to serve their country.
For me, I am abhorred to read of the cruelty done to children, whose contribution to our future possibly inhibited or vanished. I advance the challenge that unless children and the family unit is supported and encourage to educate, feed and clothe properly their next generation, wholesale chaos would promote anarchy of unfathomable proportions.
Besides providing the country a strong, educated future generation who will be handed off to soon, the family unit can be a most rewarding and pleasant experience. I am very proud of my three children, and sure the government offered tax exemptions and other forms of financial help to our family, but the rewards and benefits far out weigh the expenditure.
My daughter received her education at all levels, elementary through state funded NC School of Science and Math, and grants made it possible to accomplish her early childhood dream of being a lawyer (they makes lots of money and then I can be a poet). My two sons also received an education to allow them to serve their country, and the eldest to become an accomplished college graduate in computer science (this kid had a hard time reading in school). My family’s story is repeated all across this land.
When government decides to stop supporting the family, businesses should also be denied their exemptions, grants and other business friendly laws all granting monies from state and federal treasuries.
The America you live in today is a result of past generations trying to improve on the way of the American life and the American people as a whole.
Foks who cannot see beyond this should ask a childless couple, and I personally know many, if given the choice on not paying taxes, and have the laws eliminate the funding of children, would they? Almost to the person, they would not agree. Several are teachers. Their children are their students.
So if one is not wanting to offer progressive ways to improve on social life, and does not wish to participate in Amercian values and the American way of life, then I suggest your find or develop your on island to reside. I recommend the ‘plastic island in the Pacific’ for you.
If David Smith thinks it is bad that there are tax breaks for the children, what is his feelings concerning earned income credits? The damocrats are increasing those again this year dramatically. This system, as well as all other welfare programs, also encourages parents to not be married.
If David Smith thinks it is bad there are tax breaks for the children, he is going to get a real eye-opener, when the socialists want a single parent to be paid more for their work than a single person, “It isn’t fair, that a person has to raise children on the same income as a person just supporting himself gets!”
If David Smith thinks it is bad there are tax breaks for the children, he is going to get an even more real eye-opener, when the socialists want to take the monies he is able to save in retirement savings accounts and not have to spend on a family, and allocate it to the social security system so all can be treated fairly. Then it will save for several more years the largest ponzi scheme of all times called the Social Security System.
Jeff Day EA
Evansville, IN
Never mind credits and deductions — people with kids should have to pay an impact fee for each child. Don’t laugh — that’s what a lot of jurisdictions are doing; unfortunately, it’s politically incorrect to charge for kids directly, so they have to charge for building new houses. But it’s pretty much the same thing. Why not cut to the chase and charge per kid?
Urb
I just think of the tax breaks as being a little nudge and wink from the IRS for providing them with future tax payers.
Nikki,
That’s hysterical!
And all else,
For the record, my dream of making enough money as a lawyer to become a poet might not have happened but I do write a mean haiku…
Speaking purely from a capitalist financial aspect…. Children are not just children, they are future of the country. A lone stag will be productive for only so many years, but a family with kids will be assets generation after generation.
It’s true :),
June
Thank you! I agree! I feel like our government rewards people for being irresponsible. I saw an advertisement saying “young mothers get 10k back on going to school!” so because I’m responsible and chose to wait until I can afford to have a child I don’t get any tax breaks or education grants handed to me.
Umm, actually Kitty, that little flashing ad on your computer that says “young mothers get 10k back on going to school!” is just a scam to get you to pay a company to file your financial aid forms for you. There is no new “irresponsible” knocked up chick reward for going back to school. It’s the same benefits everyone has available to them. You might get more student aid for having a kid, but you’re also pumping more money into the economy while you’re raising them. And just like everyone else in this country, you get pleanty of tax breaks and education grants handed to you. If you decided not to look for them then that’s your loss.
The fact is that the average Muslim Nation Resident has 8.5 children, the average American Nation Resident has 2. Therefore by 2050 Europe will be almost completely Muslim. I’m not saying that’s bad or good, that’s for your personal taste and belief to decide, it’s just a fact. So not long after that, if the childbearing rates stay the same, the entire world will be different and this discussion may not matter at all. A new set of laws will be put into effect by the majority. Again, no offense to Muslim or non-Muslim, just facts to educate.