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.
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.
What a horrid take. Here’s my up vote for a truly unpopular opinion.
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.
A carefully crafted shit take … up voted!
It is true that before reaching adulthood children are a financial burden for society, but primarily they are a financial burden on parents. Tax breaks help make it more affordable and a viable option for more than just the wealthy.
But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage. Some people are not responsible enough to be good parents, or otherwise are not in the right circumstances where it would make sense. But generally children are an investment in society’s future, and very much worth the costs of supporting with projected future contributions.
But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage.
This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but you’re absolutely right. Having children is the most selfish act possible. Nobody on the planet asked to come into existence; we’re all here because of a choice our parents made. Regardless of your place in the world, no human experiences their entire life without pain and suffering. I am personally very happy with my life, but there have of course been ups and downs. By producing a child, you’re guaranteeing that another person will experience suffering and sadness. Nobody lives forever, so you’re condemning another person to death.
Having children (to some degree, not unchecked) is necessary for the human race to continue to exist, but the idea that producing and raising a child is a selfless act is as far from the truth as you can get. If you consider a theoretical world where everyone was suddenly sterile, the human race would cease to exist within a very short time. A lot of other things would cease to exist: Sadness and heartbreak, murder, rape, war, terrorism, poverty, starvation.
One might argue that brief periods of happiness give a reason for continuing human existence, but is this really true? Most people, if they’re lucky, go through life in a neutral state; we might not be happy or sad, but we’re “doing okay.” If suffering is a -1 and happiness is a +1, with everyday life being a 0, then every person is going to ultimately average out to somewhere around zero. By having a child, you’re making an irrevocable choice that you want another human being to live a life that’s either neutral to a point that’s statistically insignificant or predominantly negative, and you’re making this choice because something in your brain is telling you to. It’s the epitome of selfishness.
Breathtaking.
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…
Only rich people should have children - that’s a seriously unpopular opinion. Upvoted.
I thought the whole eugenics thing was generally agreed to be bad, especially when enforced by economic class, but guess it’s in fashion again, sort of like it was ~100 years ago?
Eugenics is how we turned wolves into dogs and selectivity bred specific working instincts into them. It’s how we bred disease resistant crop varieties or crops with heavier / larger fruits.
Wait, if it works everywhere else, surely it works on humans too?
Congratulations, that’s the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on Lemmy.
Yeah. Just what the world needs… a bunch of neglected kids who will rob me in 15 years.
Your parents should have taken assistance so you could have been weaned on something other than paint chips.
Better yet, everyone should stop having kids so humans will die out. I’m not sure who will produce food for us or wipe our ass in the nursing home someday, but we’ll get those sweet, sweet tax breaks in the meantime
This isn’t unpopular, this is plain wrong. You seem to be so blinded by your hate of kids that you forget they’re critically essential for the society to function
Parents already pay higher taxes on everything they buy for their kids.
You need one jacket. My fam needs 4. I’m paying 4x the sales tax you are. I drive my kids to school …I pay more gas tax.
The only place parents get a break is on income and the only reason is because we have to pay for at least 2x the stuff.
There are states in the US where this might be reversed, e.g. they have no sales tax, but higher income tax (Oregon). I’m not suggesting that moving to any of those states would be feasible for most of us, but the tax burden may work a bit different for parents there.
As someone with no kids, never wanted the crotch goblins, I have no issues with parents getting a break on taxes raising their kids (where I am there is no tax on kids clothes and I am 100% behind this) and my subsidising their education. Besides I, OP, and basically everyone else will need these new adults in the making to take care of us when we are once again, and I am sure will shock OP, will be in the position to need to be looked after again (unless OP came to the world a fully formed adult, I know I wasn’t). Who do they think is going to look after all of us?
Who is going to look after you in particular? Probably no one.
Sorry bro. Go play video games.
If I go to the store for a jacket, you’re right, I only need to buy one. You may need to buy 4, but do you really think that the sales tax you spend on supplies for your children is equivalent to what they cost the taxpayers in public education? Does it offset the increased demand that your children place on the supply chain for food? Does it offset the carbon emissions that 4 more human beings produce for 18 years?
Maybe your children will grow up to cure cancer one day. Maybe they’ll spend their entire adulthood working a minimum-wage service job. As long as they don’t grow up to become drug addicts or serial killers, they’re still contributing to society in whatever way they can. Until they become adults, though, they’re not a contributing member of society. Nobody forced you to produce 4 children, and the taxpayers should not be forced to support your life choices based on the possibility that they may benefit from them in the future.
I don’t hate children. They’re brought into the world whether they like it or not, and they should have every chance to succeed as long as they put forth some sort of effort. What I do hate are parents who have a child without any consideration to what they’re doing. No couple should ever have more than 2 children, at least until the population declines. Children should not be punished because of their parents poor reproductive choices. Parents should be punished, not rewarded.
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.
Until the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society
Just remember that after the age you can work, you will be a drain on other people’s children.
Further, he was a drain on society until he was of age too.
This is such ‘fuck you, I want mine’ mentality.
I was a drain on society until I started working. My parents should have paid higher taxes to compensate, or perhaps thought twice about having a child in the first place. I can’t go back in time 40 years and change tax laws to support what I’ve learned as an adult, but I can certainly advocate for better laws now.
Furthermore, I will not be a drain on other people’s children once I reach the age that I can no longer work. At some point, I will reach an age where my physical and mental state no longer allows me to be a productive member of society. With any luck, that will be very close to my death; hopefully, I’ll die while still gainfully employed. If that doesn’t happen, though, my retirement savings will be more than enough to last me through the very few years between the point that I stop working and pass away.
Okay but hear me out: Less children, more robots. GG
“The government should disincentivize making more citizens and make it much more expensive to do so” is a take that definitely belongs here.
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.
“Future citizens are a drain in society until they aren’t, so we should make their caregivers pay more to the government while they’re also paying out the nose to raise them”
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.
“We should be actively sabotaging our society by destroying the incentives to make the next generation”
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.
“If you can’t support your child on your own while paying higher* taxes, good fucking luck birther”
I read it as we should tax OP more for all the years that they were a drain on society to make up for all the tax breaks that they got.
As it is people like this should consider that “paying taxes to support other people’s kids” is really just them paying everyone back for when they were a kid.
But yes society needs people of all ages and without young people there would eventually be a collapse.
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.
No offense but there is something deeply wrong with your worldview and I think you may need to speak to a professional.
What is so deeply wrong about their worldview?
You too, go get help
Very eye opening.
It’s extremely selfish way to view society. Like, would collapse society as we know it kinda selfish.
I tried typing this once before, but kept running into situations were I’m not sure if I’m just being condescending. These are the most obvious reasons this is a selfish and self destructive perspective:
When you are old, children today will be the only people able to take care of you. Optimizing society so that there are many more old people than young people will create unfair burden on the next generation, and probably lead to horrific suffering for millions of people (probably including you).
Children are best raised by stable, happy, healthy families, and they are more productive members of society (and happier) when that happens. Because we want the next generation to be happy and productive, aiding today’s parents helps us all tomorrow. Adding financial strain causes many negative effects for families, and therefor for children, and therefor for society at large.
Unless you are extremely lucky, you probably faced issues in your own childhood that would have been lessened if your parents had more money. Wishing the same, but worse on the next generation is twisted.
