My wife and I had 3 children (2 boys and a girl) all adults now. I think I have some credibility when I say the tax credits we got were unfair to the rest of you.
Well? They were!
Until high school they all attended public schools. Which means we paid the same towards school tax (property tax) as someone who had 2, 1, or no children. Our kids used the parks system 3 times more than childless home owners. There was a 3X greater chance that we used emergency services (police, fire, rescue) than childless people.
If anything, my wife and I should have been taxed more. Yet our taxes didn’t go up until our kids grew up and moved away from home.
Folks with even more kids pay even less taxes, while they suckle even more (or at least there is a greater chance the suckle even more) off the system.
Show me how giving tax breaks to breeders helps our overall society/community/neighborhood.
The reason I have always heard is that it’s in the governments best interest to have its population procreating. At least enough to replace the parents. That way they ensure that there is a sufficient next generation to pay taxes.
Yup. Those kids will pay the SS for the people who don’t have children, plus I think we all have a responsibility to see that children are taken care of.
In a more practical sense, children who grow uneducated and impoverished create a lot of problems for everyone else.
The tax breaks help pay for the kids’ food. Since the parents are the citizens who are footing the bill for these other citizens, the government gives the adult-citizens a tax break to offset their expenses in citizen-care.
It is everyone’s responsibility to nurture the next generation.
I am not one of those who believe the only purpose to life is procreation and the continuation of the species, but I do think our social responsibilites include caring for the children as well as the grandparents.
I think parents should get more meaningful tax incentives for raising ‘replacement’ children.
I need food too, and I’m not only a citizen, but I’m actually contributing to society now. Where’s my tax break?
I think if dependants are tax deductable simply because the government wants to encourage population growth, then they would be giving immigrants tax breaks too.
Your tax break is in the standard deduction that you get for breathing last year.
The US government has decided that it costs something for each person to live, and that every person should get a tax deduction to cover part of that. If you are an adult, you get one deduction. If you are a dependent, than your parent gets to claim your deduction.
Just to clarify some of the terminology being said - there are no tax “deductions” just for having children. There are personal exemptions that act much like a deduction which can usually be claimed for dependent children as well as the taxpayer and spouse, $3,700 for each exemption for tax year 2011. Until tax year 2010 these exemptions would start to be phased out and possibly eliminated all together for high income taxpayers so they would receive no tax benefit from them. For tax years 2010 through 2012 the phase out has been removed.
There is also a child tax credit that is available for dependent children aged 16 and younger which can reduce your tax by up to $1,000 per child. This credit starts to be phased out until eliminated for single filing taxpayers with an AGI of more than $75,000 or joint filing taxpayers with an AGI of more than $110,000.
The criteria for qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit is also affected by how many children you have.
Off the top of my head those are the only federal income tax benefits that exist just for having children. This does not take into account things like the dependent care credit which have further criteria for qualifying than just having children.
If you are a married adult who is not employed, you also get to deduct yourself from your joint tax return.
In terms of property taxes, the family with fewer children can more easily live in a smaller (lower tax) residence. I wouldn’t like to see a family of 5 attempt to live in the 400sqft studio I owned as a bachelor, or the 600sqft “2” bedroom unit I lived in as a childless newlywed. If you’re childless and choose to live in a sprawling 4 bedroom McMansion, I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for your tax situation. And, while you do not take full advantage of the town’s services, your future buyer may, and having those services fully funded helps preserve the value of your house.
The OP seems to be based on the idea that the amount of tax a person (or household) pays is, or should be, tied to the amount of “government” that person uses. But taxes (or at least, income taxes) don’t work that way: they’re based on how much money you make, and thus, how much you can afford to pay. People with lower incomes pay less than people with higher incomes basically because they (supposedly) can’t afford to pay as much. Likewise, people with dependents pay less than people without because, after the expenses of feeding, clothing, etc. the kids, they can’t afford to pay as much in taxes. Think of it like tax-deductible business expenses.
Hey, maybe I could adopt you. Then I could give you some food and you could be my tax break! Er, you have to actually provide most of your own food, though. I have some Salad in a Bag and Mallomars I’m willing to share.
I don’t know what the law says, but it seems like it might make economic sense to have a bigger tax break for adopting a kid than for raising a child you gave birth to yourself?
The first two children give a tax break equal to or slightly greater than that which currently exists. Each additional child gives less, until there is no tax break at all. The exact numbers are debatable, of course, but let’s say once you have 4 children you would not get additional tax breaks from a 5th.
Exceptions could be made for multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.), or perhaps just multiple births not resulting from the use of fertility drugs. So let’s say you have two children, and want a third. Nature sends you three instead of one, so now you have five. You’d get a break for the amount you’d normally get for a third child, but times three. (That is, the “second” of the triplets would not get you only the break for a forth child, nor would the third triplet get you nothing. Each would get you what a single third child would get you.) However, they all count towards the total. A 6th or 7th child would get you nothing.
Thudlow Boink, that same argument would apply to someone with a low income who spent a lot of money on Girl Scout cookies. After buying all those Thin Mints, they simply can’t afford to pay much in taxes. Should they get a tax break?
Why shouldn’t a kid–first or tenth–get the same deduction as an adult? We don’t restrict deductions for any other reason: it’s not like you have to be a productive member of society to get one or anything. It doesn’t even have to be your income, in the case of a spouse who doesn’t work.
Kids don’t get deductions. Their parents (or whoever is claiming them) do.
The reasoning behind my proposal is, put roughly, that the government should not be offering incentives to have children. I just don’t see how that’s the proper role of government anymore than the opposite - trying to stop people from breeding. If people want to have children, they are certainly free to do so. If they choose not to, that’s cool too. Given that schools (etc.) are already paid for by tax dollars, including the taxes of people with no children (which I have no problem with), I don’t see why the life choices of some people should be further subsidized.
Public schools are not a subsidy for parents, but a service for the whole society. Everyone benefits from decent public schools (or suffers from poor or absent ones).
Yeah, I’ve never known anyone who has made the decision to have more children based off the $3600 exemption (not deduction, by the way - its taken off your income, not your taxes - so honestly, it isn’t worth much at lower income brackets - it isn’t worth much more than $1200 at high income brackets ). And I’ve never known anyone to not have a child because the tax breaks weren’t large enough.
Not much of an incentive to have kids. Taking it away wouldn’t be a disincentive to have kids. It would make raising those kids a lot more difficult for a lot of families.
And if we are going to take away the exemptions for just existing, lets just take away them all. Why bother with exemptions? Just expand (or don’t) the floor at which income is non-taxable. What makes someone’s non-working partner worthy of an exemption, or retirees?
