Are middle-class parents ripping off the "child-free"?

Great Debates
21

Does this mean you’re willing to give me a yearly subsidy in the hope that I might one day cure cancer or write the great American novel? Or because if you don’t, I might rob a convenience store?

Why aren’t we honest about the payoff? Why don’t we just write parents a check for each kid every year instead of concealing the subsidy in the form of a tax break? Why? Because if it were clear what was going on, those of us without children might be a little more vocal with our objections.

Personally, I am willing to subsidize public schools and associated programs. No problem there. But when you start asking me to pay people to support their kids, count me out. The whole concept is outrageous.

It is one thing to support those who are disabled, for example, and can’t help themselves. It is quite another to take money out of the pocket of one hard-working middle income citizen and put it into the pocket of another just because the latter has made the conscious choice to have children. You make that choice, you should be willing to bear the responsibilities it entails without calling on me for a handout.

(Clarification: I am not talking about starving kids here. I am talking about kids whose parents have jobs and homes. Why do they get to stick their hands into my pocket?)

22

I’ll second that. No objection here to subsidies for adoptive parents.

23

The point of the analogy was not to compare the value of a car with the value of a child, if that’s how you took it.

The point I was trying to make is that a person who can’t afford a car, or a child, without the financial help of others should not buy a car or have a child, to begin with.

24

Spoke –

Why is it one thing to support the disabled (they get a tax break, too, you know) but not to support children, who seem to fit your category of not being able to help themselves?

I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.

25

I think Sweet Lotus hit it on the head.

The way I see it, anything that contributes to people raising better children is beneficial to everybody in society.

One point that is being overlooked here is that I believe tax breaks enable parents to spend more time with their children and make it easier to care for them.

I do not have any children but I don’t have a problem with the tax breaks. I also don’t understand why people are so reluctant to subsidize schools. IMHO both of these lead to better children. These are the same children that grow up as either good citizens or criminals that we need to build more prisons to contain.

Which would you rather have?

“It’s like banging your head against a wall because it feels so good when you stop.”

26

Don’t do me any favors. I find the parasitical selfishness of some of the arguments here nauseating. If a person has no loyalty or obligation to the human race, he can go live on a farm in Montana and stop sucking up the intellectual, cultural and political capital of humanity’s collective acheivements.

I’m not going to continue to comment on this thread. Whiny crybabies (Hh no! He got a whole extra $500 for helping preserve the human race! Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!) bore me.

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

27

Good point.

I do want to point out, though, that this particular deduction is not a deduction for children, it’s a deduction for dependents (children, of course, being a class of dependents). If you are the person caring for your elder parents, or even (I think - someone correct me if I’m wrong) your no-good-bum-of-a-brother-in-law then you get to take a dependent deduction.

I believe that the reasoning is that a person who is taking care of others should get a tax break for doing so.

28

“Helping preserve the human race”? Oh, Guinevere! What a grandiose claim! I really don’t think the race is in any danger of dying out if you don’t get your subsidy.

I wonder how the number of children in the country for whom deductions are claimed compares with the number of childless taxpayers. How much of your 500 bucks per child am I personally having to pay. A good chunk, I’ll wager. So yes, I am being oppressed, and you (middle-class and upper class parents who don’t need this payoff) are being enriched at my expense.

Hey, I’m a Democrat. I believe in a helping hand to those who truly need it. This money is not going to the truly needy, for the most part. It began as a way to pander to the middle class. Seems to have worked, considering the strong attachment folks in this thread seem to have to this little piece of voter candy.

By the way, I hope none of you who are arguing for this tax break are Republicans, because if you are, then you’re a bunch of welfare-receiving hypocrites! :wink:

The tax break for home mortgage interest is different. I would say that tax break serves the valid function of encouraging home ownership (a clear boon to the economy - home construction is one of the engines which makes our economy run). Because of the resulting boost to the economy, even the non-homeowner would benefit.

Not so for the tax deduction (or is it a credit) for dependents. People are going to have children whether the government subsidizes it or not. Besides, given the problems created by an expanding population, do we really want to encourage having more chilren anyway?

That said, I would not be opposed to doing away with all deductions. I would still want to keep a graduated tax, of course. (I am a Democrat after all!) Seems to me the system would be more fair if politicians would quit using the tax code to pander to their contributors and their constituencies by tossing them tax break goodies.

29

I don’t see any difference at all between the tax break for parents and the tax break for homeowners. Children are at least as big a boon to the economy.

30

I echo what cher said.

In fact, having kids encourages home ownership. Kids also drive several other major industries (to name a few, toys, video games, clothing, bicycles, car seats, infant formula, furniture and bedding, ice cream, candy, and Pokemon- although that last one may be considered a severe detriment to society).

As a parent with children, I own a bigger house and thus pay more in property taxes; I buy more consumer goods and thus pay more in sales taxes.

Those people who expect to receive Social Security benefits ought to do everything possible to encourage people to have kids. It is not your own contribution to the system that pays your way; it’s the wages of the generation that comes after you.

31

SingleDad said:

Hm. I guess a nerve was touched. Oh well.

But the OP wasn’t only about tax breaks. Instead, it indicated an attitude in corporate America that parents were entitled to more benefits all around because they have children.

By benefits, I include favorable work conditions. I know that when my wife’s company needs someone to go on a red-eye flight to New Jersey the next day, they sure as heck don’t ask someone with kids. They ask her. And yet whether you have kids or not is most likely not taken into consideration at raise or promotion time.

I guess all most childless people are asking is for is some equal consideration. If we have to take responsibility and stay all night at work to make up for a parent rushing off early to go to a soccer game, then we should get commensurate rewards: more pay, larger responsibility, faster advancement.

“One more anal-probing, gyro, pyro, levitating, eco-plasm, alien anti-matter story and I’m gonna take out my gun and shoot somebody.”
– Fox Mulder

32

The current discussion seems to be focusing on the tax-break aspect of the topic. Here’s another angle. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/99/0111/6301072a.htm

33

Well, as I’ve already said, I don’t see any extra benefits around here. I do my share of business travel, I have the same benefits as my co-workers, and I work the same hours.

I would be willing to wager, Necros, that people, especially women, without children do make more and advance faster than those without. That has been the major driving force behind the trend toward later childbearing.

Personally, I think all of this antagonism between the childless and the childrearing is playing right into the hands of the powers that be. It’s a worker’s economy right now. Everyone should be demanding more more benefits–more vacation time, more flexible schedules, less pointless travel. Instead we whine about the guy in the next cubicle leaving half an hour early, while the CEO votes himself a new company car.

Excuse me, I gotta go pick up my kids.

34

cher3 and Holly, you raise some good points about the effect of children on the economy. (Points which, I confess, I had not considered.) People with children are more likely to spend a greater percentage of their income because of the children, which would have the effect of stimulating the economy.

However, the tax break on mortgage interest is specifically designed as an incentive for folks to purchase homes, and it does have that effect. With the interest deduction, it is considerably easier to buy a home than it would otherwise be, and many more people are able to make the transition from renter to homeowner as a result. There are people who buy homes because that tax break is there, making it affordable to do so.

On the other hand, I do not think anyone has children because of the tax break involved. People are going to have children with or without the tax break. Therefore, the tax break provides no incentive to have children, and no resulting economic stimulus. Instead, that break is merely “voter candy” – a way for politicians to pander to middle class voters.

(By the way, please do me the favor of acknowledging, at least, that there is a pander factor where this tax break is concerned.)

At any rate, as I said before, I would not object to eliminating all deductions. It would be more fair. As long as we’re going to have deductions, though, I see a better justification for the mortgage interest deduction than for the parental deduction.

35

I don’t have kids. I would like to, but since I barely date and like a certain level of my present irresponsibility I don’t plan on having any soon.

But I am NOT a WHINY CRYBABY if I point out that I subsidize people’s kids. Yes, I think it IS fair to ask all of society to help support kids, but I think that people who “cover” for co-workers to watch soccer games three times a week are being asked to do more than their share. (And why teen-age boys actually “need” cars is beyond me to answer.)

Some of the people who complain about supporting children really are just selfish, although I haven’t seen those characteristics in any of the posts. But some parents do seem to act as if the world revolves around their kids.

A few years agao, I taught a speech class where one woman brought her daughter to class several days a week. Other students got very distracted by the child, who (naturally enough) got bored or made faces or talked during their speeches or what have you. The mom said that we should be understanding of the pressures on her; the other students said that the daughter hurt their educations. I had to side with the rest of the class. My class is not a day care, and the mom shouldn’t have tried to make anyone feel guilty for not wanting it to be.

It is that kind of “well, you’ll HAVE to deal with it” attitude that may be causing some of the anger over this issue in this society.

P.S. I would be much more willing to do more to support parents if I could also set some of the rules–no TV for kids under 5, no juice boxes, very limited computer use for kids under 10, very limited video-game use for kids under 15. But that day will never come. If I am to be taxed (by the government and by my employer) it would be nice to have some representation. I don’t, so protest is about my only venue.

Bucky

36

WILLGOLF: actaully, they are talking about the “child tax credit”, which is only for KIDS under 19. This is the big tax break the GOP promised the middle class, while the rest went to the weathly. Of course, us working stiffs w/ no kids got no tax break at all.

37

I am wondering why the idea of “not taking as much away from parents in the form of taxes” equates to “giving them my money.” Similarly, “corporations giving parents additional benefits” means “something is being taken from non-parents.” Is it simply because the burden on non-parents is greater than it would otherwise be? I don’t know how an exact accounting could be made of people’s burdens vs the effects of their life choices on others.

People benefit from either tax breaks or specific benefits from their employers for many reasons that involve choice. Would the people who object to special benefits for parents also object to the following examples where someone benefits at the “expense” of others:
Companies paying for employee’s continuing education
Companies sponsoring employee bowling league
Companies paying for transportation for non-driving employees
Companies allowing time off for military reserve duty

38

First, I want to apologize for being testy in my earlier post. I offer not as an excuse but an explanation the fact that I slept poorly last night. Compounding the problem, I had just finished posting in the Creationist threads, so I already had a hair across my ass.

Regardless, I like to hold myself to a higher standard in debates with my esteemed colleagues. I apologize, and I promise to do better in the future at expressing myself with the respect and consideration which the large majority of posters here deserve.

That being said, I want to point out a few things:

As long as people are not immortal, we must have some children around. Population growth is a problem, and perhaps we need fewer children, but we do need some. Without sufficient children, the human race will quickly expire. Childbearing and child rearing must be the primary public interest of any society.

Being a parent is a giant pain in the ass. It’s incredibly expensive and time-consuming. I would happily trade income and expenses, tax breaks included (even my mortgage interest) with any single person making half my salary.

The most important task of child rearing is a child’s emotional development. Those soccer games and ballet practices sound trivial, bu remember, half the motivation for the child is to earn the approval of his parents. No parent goes to a kid’s soccer game because of the parent’s love of the sport and the thrilling display of the childrens’ athleticism. We go because we want to show our approval of our childrens’ efforts.

Thirdly, companies support parents because, frankly, we’re usually very loyal employees. They also know we have a very low tolerance for interference with our parental duties. We’ll put up with a lot, but when you mess with our time with our kids, we’ll split in a New York second.

Over my career, I’ve spent far more time covering for incompetent single co-workers than for parents needing extra time with their kids. I get cut far more slack because I’m an evil genius, and my work gets done well, than because I’m a parent.

Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

39

WillGolfForFood wrote

SingleDad wrote:

OK, these are a couple of good points.

I can see an argument being made that a parents real income is not as high as it appears because a good portion of that income is being spent to support a non-revenue-producing individual.

I also see the point that employees with children tend to be loyal employees. I know that as a single guy, I have much less to lose if I quit my job, or slack off for that matter. On the other hand, if I have children to support, I am going to be very highly motivated to work hard, keep my job, and earn as many performance bonuses as I can.

Gilligan wrote:

Oh come on. Of course it is the same as giving them my money. It’s just a backhanded way of doing it. (Republicans just don’t want to admit to handing out middle class welfare.) A childless person’s taxes are higher than they would otherwise need to be because parents are paying less than they would otherwise pay without this tax break.

40

That “wondering” is one of the biggest problems with using the tax code to provide social welfare – it hides an aid program behind a tax break so that it looks less discriminatory.

Let’s say the government needs $1.5 trillion in taxes to run the country and devises a tax code to raise that. Now suppose Congress later votes to let 25 million parents pay $5000 less tax than everyone else($125 billion in tax credits).

That same tax code will now only generate $1.25 trillion dollars and Congress will have to raise taxes across the board to cover the difference. Parents don’t mind this increase because they’re getting that $5000 break. Singles, however, pay higher taxes without getting the break.

In the end, (higher taxes included) the parents may be up $4000 and everybody else down $1000. i.e. the non-parents are funding the tax break for the parents.

(all numbers pulled from thin air)