Umm… forgive my math. Make that “the same tax code will now only generate $1.375 trillion” not “$1.25 trillion”
If only we could do this retrospectively. All those people who think that children are a bother, a nuisance, and that people who bring them into the world are just doing it for “selfish reasons”… I wish we could agree retroactively. I wish that we had a time machine, so that your parents could have heard you present this point of view before you were born, and that you had convinced them. Then they wouldn’t have put up with the bother, and you wouldn’t be here.
The argument that people shouldn’t have children is made by people who are already born, and already were children. Rarely do the unborn get an equal say or an equal vote.
But certainly, those who espouse that point of view SHOULDN’T have children.
I don’t recall too many people actually vilifying parents and children. Rather, many are saying “I’ll take care of my children… you take care of yours.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
Everyone should use the same tax scale, regardless of sex, race, marital status, parental status, etc.
If Congress really wants to encourage parenthood, it should vote to cut a check to each parent every year. If it wants to discourage marriage, it should demand a fee from each married couple every year. In all things, we should be honest about what’s going on instead of hiding it in an insanely complicated tax code.
I’m in the group that takes a bigger hit than just about anybody - a young married person without kids.
But I do have to say, the system as it is makes some sense from a societal standpoint. In theory, parents should actually pay more in taxes, because more people in their homes are receiving governmental services and the general benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
This, of course, doesn’t work, because their financial situation is generally tighter than a single person’s. Raising kids is expensive.
We as a society have just sort of accepted that raising the next generation is of value and something we should support.
Where do you draw the line on this? Why should I pay for the military defense, medicaid, etc., of people not doing their fair economic share – the poor, handicapped, elderly?
As has been alluded to earlier, we all may not be parents, but we were all kids. And our families all received some of these benefits.
Give me immortality, or give me death!
If we all want to help out with the child-rearing, that’s fine!
Let’s build public schools, offer Medicaid, fund libraries and children’s hospitals and the like. Heck, let’s even write checks to parents to help them out with diapers and baby formula.
Just don’t do it through the tax code! That just needlessly complicates things and confuses those who don’t realize that they are actually funding all of that.
spoke-
Pander factor acknowledged. 
Every law enacted by our sacred government has a pander factor; I’m willing to concede that tax breaks for parents are not exactly fair because it is in effect a tax on childless people. I also happen to think that the money I pay to Social Security is lost forever, I doubt I’ll receive a personal dime in benefits, and it’s unfair for me to support elderly people who have long ago outlived the amount of money they put into the system. sigh
Back to corporate benefits. I have never once left work early on account of my kids. When my son had major hand surgery (bilateral carpal resections with tendon transplants) I was unable to take a day off work to go to Dallas to be with him. I finally found someone who would take my shift so I could go; this (single, childless) person failed to show up that day. I was reprimanded with a no-call, no-show that went on my permanent file and was denied my raise because of it when evaluation time came around. sigh
As far as public schools go, being in a good district makes property values go up because many homeowners are parents who desire to live in a good district. Supporting your public school benefits all homeowners in the district, childless or not.
**meara: **
We live in a culture and a society. A central reason to participate in a society is to gain the benefits of cooperation. It sounds to me like you want to enjoy the benefits without making any of the sacrifices.
I disagree with your assertion that it needlessly complicates things. Running a society, and negotiating practical agreements requires finesse and skill, the primary requirement for a professional politician.
The tax code is the means we have implemented for implementing these negotiations; I’m sorry it doesn’t meet to your taste. Perhaps you should enter politics and help negotiate a different agreement. If you have any suggestions that would be practical and distributed fairly, you are most certainly welcome to post them here.
Milossarian:
Just sort of? A society that doesn’t propagate itself will obviously not long survive. There is no accidental or incidental nature to propagation. It’s central to the survival of every persistent society.
Another note:
In general, few specific taxes are “fair”. However the tax structure as a whole (as well as the entire socio-political system) has proven itself in this country to be very effective. We have a powerful, wealthy, and quite free society. Every citizen and resident enjoys those benefits.
I think it’s untenable to argue that we should cease having children, or make that choice economically untenable. I think it’s untenable in general that a person should enjoy the full fruits of our society, and pick and choose the obligations they must then return (however, I see no objection to choosing the method of fulfilling those obligations).
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
So how was raising children economically tenable before there were taxes?
Child labor.
Ah… okay, I see. Willingness to raise my children without economic assistance makes me a free-loader. 
Your logic seems a bit flawed, SingleDad. Your position seems to be that the tax break is OK because it is vitally important that we propagate our species and perpetuate our culture. Do you mean to say that without this tax, people are going to stop having children?
[The scene: A Bedroom in Middle America. Husband turns to wife…]
Husband: Darling, I’ve been holding off on the idea of children until now, but Congress just passed a tax exemption, so whadda ya say?
Wife: Sweetie, you know nothing puts me in the mood like a big ol’ refund check! Come on over here!
[Baby-making ensues…]
Come on. Let’s be honest. This tax break was not intended to help children in any way. (Children not being a real big voting bloc…) It was intended to pander to middle-class parents, who do vote.
Society is not going to collapse if the tax break vanishes, and people are not going to stop having children either.
Your local government has come up with a brilliant cooperative plan. Every parent is to escort all children to a regional education center where the state will commence guardianship. They will be housed with all of the other children in the neighborhood and educated collectively according to guidelines set down by the unbiased childless voters.
I’m sure you understand that society has a vested interest in the raising of the next generation. Both parents and non-parents agree that we want only the best for the little tots. In light of that, no adult shall be permitted access to any child, regardless of biological relation, without the proper psychological certification.
What? You protest?
But SingleDad, we live in a culture and a society. A central reason to participate in a society is to gain the benefits of cooperation. It sounds to me like you want to enjoy the benefits without making any of the sacrifices.
(The point here is not only that cooperation can be taken too far, but also that tax credits are hardly the ideal. Cooperation assumes that the childless have a say in how the money is spent (as for public education, bussing, parks, Little League, etc.), which is not true in the case of parental tax credits.)
I don’t believe there should be any tax breaks for people with children. They use more services, so if anything they should pay more. I have no problem with paying for public education. The way I see it, I’m just making late payments on my own usage. Lets face it, with 6 billion people on this planet, we’re in no danger of extinction. Furthermore, the odds of your child growing up to knock over a liquor store are greater than the odds that he/she will grow up to perfect fusion. If someone makes the choice to have a child, fine. Let them pay for it. If I choose to buy a Ferrari, nobody is going to pay for it but me. I need a Ferrari just as much as the world needs another child, especially considering all of the unwanted children waiting to be adopted. I don’t mind a tax break for those who adopt. The way I see it, they are the people who are really doing society a favor by taking in the unwanted. Sheesh.
I’m not sure I agree with the word “pander” that has been used several times in reference to the tax break. Voting is (theoretically) how Americans make their wishes known to their leaders. The existence of tax breaks for things like mortgage interest, dependents, personal business expenses, etc. just illustrate that the people who have these things are using their votes.
If childless people were a powerful majority, there would probably be a luxury tax on children (and, presumably disabled spouses or whatever.)
To me, pandering, is enacting laws that have been shown to go against the voters’ wishes in order to get campaign funding.
I have been using the word in the 3rd sense. I think.
cher3, I really don’t think the tax break we’re talking about is a grass-roots phenomenon. I don’t remember any great movement of the people to create this break. Instead, it is a top-down proposition, created by politicians to try to buy the votes of middle-class parents. To me, that is pandering.
Now about us single folk getting together to create some tax breaks of our own…Hmmm…
The problem is we are not in the majority. If I understand your reasoning, you don’t have a problem with a majority getting together and voting a tax benefit for themselves. (In effect, voting their way into the minority’s pockets.)
Is there any limit to this? Could all city-dwellers get together and vote themselves a tax break (at the expense of rural folk) because city dwellers have to endure such things as air pollution, and traffic, and high crime, and gosh, it’s in our nation’s best interest to have cities, isn’t it, and shouldn’t we be compensated for the inconveniences we face in keeping these cities going? Same logic isn’t it?
An interesting question, spoke-. Does anybody know the actual history of the tax break for children? When did it start?
I don’t think these things move in a “grassroots” fashion–the whole tax process has become far to ponderous, with too many competing interests, for that.
I think it eventually responds to social trends, though. For example, as boomers started to age, we suddenly got IRAs and such-like.
So if childlessness becomes a major trend, then, in all likelihood, we will start to see more benefits being given to the childless.
Cher,
For the record, we prefer the term Child Free. Childless indicates that we’re missing something that we should have, as in homeless or jobless.
Well, I won’t use childfree, because it makes kids sound like a disease. (Use Orthocept and you can be childfree!) How about people without children. Will that do?
How about people without children. Will that do?
We tend to prefer “families without children.” The idea that the conventional nuclear family is the only acceptable definition of family is part of the problem, so we like to nibble away at that assumption every chance we get.
Turtle