As is stands, parents are able to claim their children as dependents on their tax returns, which lowers their overall tax liability and in effect means that the parents either pay less in taxes or receive a higher return at the end of each year.
Until they reach the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society. They receive public schooling and receive the same benefit from public services that adults do, yet they contribute nothing in return. At the point that they reach maturity and are gainfully employed and paying taxes, they become a functioning member of society.
If a parent decides to have a child, they are making a conscious decision to produce another human being. They could choose to get a sterilization surgery, use birth control, or abort the pregnancy (assuming they don’t live in a backwards state that’s banned it). Yet even if they decide to have 15 children, the rest of society has to foot the bill for their poor decisions until the child reaches adulthood.
By increasing taxes on parents instead of reducing them, you not only incentivize safe sex and abortion, but you shift the burden of raising a child solely to the individuals who are responsible for the fact that that child exists.
I am a strong advocate for social programs: Single-payer healthcare, welfare programs, low-income housing, etc, but for adults who in turn contribute what they can. A child should only be supported by the individuals who created it.
China had a one child policy for decades, now look at how they are scrambling panicking at their loss of young adult labor and aging population of seniors that can’t work.
No calculating government will shoot their own balls. Lol China…
Say what you will about humans on earth, annoying kids, etc.
But the state needs bodies. Kids are future workers, and they state wants healthy, capable workers. As such, tax credits are offered not as a prize to the parents, but an investment by the state. The state is hoping parents will have a bit more money for healthy food, housing and education for their kids, thus creating workers who are a bit healthier and more capable.
Human capital is a real thing, at a state level. Lose your input, and you’ll grow weak.
You may not have had a perfect, or even good upbringing, but any tax credit your parent/guardian received didn’t make it worse. If you did have a good upbringing, think of all the variables that went into that. Tax credits are a small part of that.
Upvote for using the sub correctly
The state doesn’t need bodies…this is absurd…
The state needs bodies for the grinder, aka military and corporations need bodies for the workforce.
Who’s going to provide care for you when you’re retired and ill? Another pensioner?
I would change the wording so it makes sense. Society needs children. Humanity needs children. A state is just some construct, but any human society needs children in order to survive.
You can’t use logic with these people, you have to give them examples, even if it sounds stupid
While we are at it any one who is irresponsible enough to become a parent shouldn’t be a parent!
Let’s put it up for a vote. There are more of us than you, so you lose. Hah! Fuck you. C’mon now quit wasting time and get back to work, you. My five unplanned children from drunken sex with randos need more money for subsidized daycare.
Unpopular as advertised, sure. But man, what an absolute weapons-grade bad take, with beginning to end poor reasoning.
Your argument doesn’t really make sense though. If benefits should be limited to the ones who can pay taxes, why have taxes! They could just pay for what they need.
Taxing is a community safety net to make sure everybody gets what they need, even individuals who can’t contribute. What you are describing sounds more like a social insurance where only people who have contributed can be covered (similar to pension)
Having taxes ensures that all members of society get the same benefit. Lets say for instance that it costs the fire department $5000 to put out a house fire for a low-income family. My income is higher, so I pay more taxes toward the fire department, but they still get the same response to their house fire that I would. That’s exactly how it should be.
Now lets say that same low-income family has 8 kids. They don’t need to have 8 kids (they don’t need to have any), and regardless of whether they’re a low-income household or part of the 1%, chances are a good number of those children won’t grow up to produce a net gain to the rest of society. The parents both work entry-level jobs, so they’re at least productive members of society. The 8 kids are still in school and produce no immediate benefit to society. Why should I be paying for their children when their children produce no benefit to any of the taxpayers; they could have just as easily aborted every pregnancy and not only would they be better able to support themselves, there would be 8 less non-productive individuals for the taxpayers to support. Once those 8 kids start working, then yes, my taxes should go to help support their healthcare, housing, food, etc; they might be the person making my sandwich, or they might be the person doing my brain surgery. The point is that they are contributing what they can.
Anyone who is productive in the world should receive the same social benefits as any other person who is productive in their same societal group. Children are not productive. They have the possibility of being productive, but not until they reach maturity. Until they reach that point, the only people who should be paying for them are the ones who made the poor decision to bring them into the world in the first place.
Who do you think will be paying your pension when you get old?
I don’t suppose OP would want to go on pension and work until they die - after all, they don’t want to be a drain on society!
I fully intend to work until my physical and mental state deteriorates to a point at which I can no longer do so. Once that happens, I’ll try my best to take a lower-paying job that can still support my by basic needs. My plan for retirement is to die. I still put away a bit in retirement savings for the small gap between when I can no longer work and when I can no longer breathe, but I hope that gap is no more than a year at most.
So while your comment was intended to be sarcastic, it is completely accurate.
You do you - whatever makes you happy.
What a horrid take. Here’s my up vote for a truly unpopular opinion.
Children will (on average) be a net-positive/taxed in the future, therefore societies incentivize having children by letting parents pay less taxes. Also, children will completely form the society of the future, so different groups in a society having children is probably a good idea for a more diverse society in the future. As having children is expensive it is probably a good idea to let less wealthier people also have children, as you probably don’t want to just exclude them.
I believe, as Jonathan Swift did, that we should simply eat the children.
It was a proposal, and a quite modest one if I recall. Also hella satirical in case anyone thought Swift believed that.
Okay but hear me out: Less children, more robots. GG
I would say the problem is not in taxing, it’s in the school system. Kids used to start working at 14, now they study until 30. You have “adults” that are basically still children from tax perspective. We need less school (the stuff we learn, not to ever use it in life again…) and more work.
The world is vastly more complex than it ever was before. I get it feels useless, but learning anything makes us smarter.
Being smarter means we will handle situations intelligently. There is no useless learning.
I don’t really have a problem with adults that study until they’re 30, as long as they come out of school being an expert in a field that’s actually useful to society. A medical student just out of high school who goes into pre-med, medical school, then residency will be close to that age by the time they finish their education. Somebody who hops from major to major and eventually gets a degree in philosophy when they’re 30… maybe find something that’s actually useful first. If you’re working and contributing and decide you want to study art history for your own personal edification, go for it.
The fact that there exists a mind who can think this is a good take has me deeply concerned for the future.
Upvote.
The reason they get a tax credit is because it costs a lot to have a kid and raise it and all that cost is taxed so they get a break because they are already putting more in then you as a single person and when the parents die they leave behind a new tax payer and when you die nothing will be left behind
You’re saying more children should live in poverty so that former children with jobs get a small tax break.
We all have to foot the bill for your old age care, so makes sense you should pay for the children who will be your nurses in old age.
You’re saying more children should live in poverty so that former children with jobs get a small tax break.
I would never suggest that children or adults should live in poverty. As long as someone is doing a job to the best of their ability, they should at least make a living wage, and I would gladly pay higher taxes or an increased cost on goods to help support that.
What I am suggesting is producing a child is ultimately a personal choice made by the parents, and they should foot the bill associated with their choice. If someone can’t afford a child, they should not have a child (and the rest of us should help pay for birth control or abortion). If someone has a child that they can’t afford, the child should be removed from the household and given to a family that is both willing and financially able to support a child. If that’s not an option, the child should be placed in a state-funded care center and given an education and basic necessities until they become an adult. The ultimate goal is for adults to think twice about reproducing unless they are fully capable of raising a child on their own and for a large number of people to stop having children.
