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

I’m single with no children. I can understand in theory what many of you are saying about the tax-break that parents get. It is a choice to have children and you should be able to afford the children before you have them, therefore you should not need the tax break.

However, bringing up future taxpayers does have its benefits to me, so already I’m thinking it’s not such a big deal that they get a tax break and I don’t.

But what really clinches it for me is how much easier my life is than parents. I work with more parents than singles, and it is clear that I have far more disposable income than any of the parents, even the ones earning far more than me. I buy new toys for myself on a whim and at will. I eat lunch wherever I feel like it. The parents I work with always have to stick to their budget. Even the more wealthy ones at least have to plan out a big purchase - if they want to spend $1000 on some stereo equipment, they usually say something like,“I’m gonna get that in a few months.” But if the money was in my bank account, I would most likely buy it as soon as I wanted it.

I place a lot of importance on my life outside of work. If I am not given ample notice to working on a weekend or working late, I may refuse to do so. I am not worried about losing my job. There are others out there and my expenses are nearly nothing anyway. The parents are afraid of losing their jobs.

Really, their lives are so much harder than mine, I don’t begrudge them a few dollars off their taxes, and I honestly don’t see why others do.

PeeQueue

“That’s because society as a whole supports and assists parents in what is a difficult and exhausting job.”

Here is the spin I get from that: Parenthood sucks. If individuals were not obligated by social pressure, direct monetary rewards from the government or their employers, and indirect support from society, then they would NOT choose parenthood.

Hmmmmmm, this is not a ringing endorsement of parenthood. Perhaps I will pursue that vasectomy with greater vigor and warn other potential parents that they should immediately seek sterilization.

“I have an obligation not to kill people. Is that a damnation of peacefulness? I have an obligation to defend the country should it be invaded. Is that a damnation of honor and duty?”

Actually, these are not obligations, these are laws (assuming a draft in time of invasion) with a subsequent punishment for breaking them. Having children is NOT a law so this comparison is not particularly valid.

Free-will is a powerful thing indeed. As Americans, we believe that the rights of the individual come over the rights of the society, despite the risks to society. However, when the choice not to have children is raised, suddenly the society becomes more important than the individual.

My life is hard. Can I have a few dollars off of my taxes at your expense? That sounds dangerously like socialism. They made the choice to make their lives harder. Why should I be obliged to pay for it?


http://www.killersurf.com/mojo

And just what does this have to do with equal benefits for equal work? Of course I am grateful for the sacrifices others have made before me. I will make my own sacrifices in my lifetime. However, none of this is truly relevant to the topic at hand. So we move on…


“I can never give a ‘yes’ of a ‘no.’ I don’t believe everything in life can be settled by a monosyllable” *Betty Smith

CKDextHavn said:

SingleDad, you’re the resident fallacy expert, I believe.
I’ve read both you and CKDext basically saying that people who are born shouldn’t be allowed to argue the point that others shouldn’t be born, and that the decision not to have children should be retroactive for those people.

These seems like some sort of fallacy. And if it’s not, isn’t it at least not very nice, and completely beside the point?

Just wondering…


“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

SingleDad wrote:

And of course by “support” you mean “finance.”

This is news to me. I was not aware of a “universal ethical obligation” to finance your kids.

As an aside… do you guys really think that if they repealed the tax breaks for dependents that they would lower your taxes to make up the difference? That is laughable. Isn’t this really a case of “it’s not fair he gets it, I want it too!” ?? I mean, are you honestly of the opinion that you are being hurt by these tax breaks? I understand that in theory you could be, but I think the government will spend the money if it’s there and won’t if it’s not.

Discrimination at the work place seems a better argument, although I have seen this work both ways (as I have shown with the attitude I am able to hold onto at work due to having no children).

PeeQueue

For SingleDad and others on the “childless/childfree” deabte: first off, I believe that self-definition is important.
You call yourself “SingleDad” - what if I decided that I would not refer to you
in that way despite your preference? It seems only common courtesy to refer to a
person in the way that they wish.

Second, for SingleDad, I wonder why you believe that humans MUST exist. So what
if we did not? We wouldn’t be here to care, just as we were not here (no matter
which view you take on the whole question) before “humans” existed. I find the
“humans need to continue” idea to be vaguely frightening - it seems that
arguments like this usually have led to wars and genocide (see “Manifest
Destiny”).

I believe most of us childfrees would like to see the same considerations
extended to EVERYONE. A sick dog, a sick friend, a sick child would all be
equally important. No harassment for being childless, childfree, or having
children. I have no problems with subsidizing public schools, but I do believe
that if you wish to have children, you should consider the financial obligation
to be your own - with financial assistance coming in the event of need only. Pay
the same taxes as I do, then if you truly need daycare that you cannot afford,
perhaps it could be provided to you (just an example). If only we could get
everyone taxed according to their actual income and work from there…

Many of us also resent the “children are a societal obligation” idea because
they seem to be such until we criticize them or their parents. And please don’t
tell me to move to Montana. Children are everywhere, and people who choose to
have them should see that they are well-behaved and have the good sense to keep
them from places, events, or things that are inappropriate for children.

I’m a parent in a two-income household, and we get tax breaks for it. I disagree with it, however, for one simple reason: I think it’s an abuse of the tax system for the government to use it to modify behaviour. We shouldn’t be subsidizing or penalizing anyone through the tax system. Taxes are necessary to raise revenue. Fine, let’s do that, in the least intrusive way possible. Let’s not use taxes as a form of social engineering. Republicans and Democrats have been doing this for decades - It’s their way to control the behaviour of people without that nasty constitution getting in the way.

Bad-Mojo:

My point exactly. Please let me know which of these points you disagree with:

[list=1][li]Raising children is hard work[/li][li]Children have social utility as well as personal utility.[/li][li]If a group receives utility from a person they accept an obligation to pay for that utility[/li][li]Parents accept (in theory) a great deal of demands from society in the manner in which they raise their children.[/li][li]When a group makes demands of an individual, they are again obliged to pay for that right.[/list=1][/li]
The fact that some people abuse their rights and responsibilities is not an argument that those rights should not exist.

miscwit:

Perhaps some would not. Those that would would have a more difficult time raising their children, and their children would be that worse as members of society in adulthood.

But what do you (the generic you) care? You’ve got yours, the next generation can live in igorance and poverty for all you care.

Parenthood is damn hard work. The benefits one receives from society, even from one’s children is minimal compared to the work. Parents do what they do because of a connection and the duty of fulfillment of obligations to humanity and their own culture as a whole.

Any person who accepts the benefit of society without fulfilling their obligations to society is a parasite.

I am not a parasite. I am fulfilling my duty both immediately (by supporting myself) and to the future (by raising my children).

But I’m the big sap, I guess. All of humanity existed to make our own generation. We might as well just rape the world, forget about having children, and let the human race die out. Small loss, given some of the examples I’ve seen.

Society and the individual exist in a state of negotiation. The rights of the individual and the needs of society must both be respected and addressed.

Bad-Mojo:

Yes, if you do something socially useful like raising children.

This is not a logical fallacy. It’s an argument. You are free to disagree with us, but I can see no flaw in the process of reasoning. We are asserting that you have received benefit from the past (your existence) and consequently owe some obligation to the future, by the principle of reciprocity.

And it’s very much on point. When one is asserting a societal obligation, one should point out a benefit that one receives.

Now you are. And it’s help support my kids. A very small amount of help, I believe perhaps $100 a year. Hardly an onerous obligation.

Call me anything you want, just don’t call me late for dinner. There’s a difference between objecting to a patently offensive term (e.g. selfish single bastards), and arguing PC nits. Childless means, literally, without children. It is accurate and non-judgemental.

Political Correctness argues that noting a condition is in itself judgemental; it essentially assumes that the condition is itself deprecatory, and we must employ linguistic contortions to actively praise the condition to make up for the horribleness of the condition itself. It’s arrant bullshit, IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion). PC is double-think at its worst.

Society sets standards (and rightly so) which I must fulfill as a parent. I don’t resent such standards.

I just object to people who think that doctors and engineers and janitors and and customer service reps and phone technicians, and construction workers just spring out of nowhere to keep the world running for the next generation. You think that civilization will just be around to support you in your old age, without taking any steps to preserve it.

And note that regardless of your financial planning for your old age, you have to have civilization itself around to give that money meaning. You can’t eat paper money or bank accounts. Unless you’re stocking up 15-25 years of actual food for your retirement, you are assuming that my children will be around to give that money meaning.


Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Any person who accepts the benefit of society without fulfilling their obligations to society is a parasite.


Why is it automatically assumed that those without children are “parasites”? Isn’t it possible to ensure that tomorrow’s generations are happy, healthy, productive citizens without actually being a parent? Many childless/childfree (choose your appropriate term) people have great influence over children through mentoring, teaching, being involved aunts/uncles, etc. My personal love is teaching – no, I don’t think that future engineers/doctors/whatever “spring out of nowhere”, but they sure aren’t going to exist without someone teaching them the skills, right?

Further, I find it strange that people automatically assume that the only way you can contribute to society’s future is through procreation. As I look around my office, I see that many of the things that improve my life are products of great minds that existed before me. If by some chance I invent something that improves future lives in some way, haven’t I contributed to future society as well? If instead of contributing the best my mind can offer over my entire lifetime, I chose to have kids instead, wouldn’t that be cheating future society as well? Look at Edison, Bell, Curie, Mozart, Beethoven, and other inventors/scientists/artists/social visionaries. I have no idea whether they had children or not, (I know Madame Curie did not) – but I’d be hard-pressed to call them “parasites” if they didn’t have children.

I think that each one of us was meant to contribute to the world in different ways, some through children and some through other ways. I know myself well enough to understand that I was meant to be a teacher and NOT a parent. I think it’s overly simplistic to think that people have contributed to society simply because they’ve given birth, especially since we all know of people who are liabilities rather than assets to our present and our future.

I guess my point is that in our zeal to simply have children to ensure our physical future existence, we are overlooking that contributions of the mind are just as important to ensure the comfort and peace of the people we produce. Some us will contribute the people – others of us will contribute our brains. Both are equally important.

dhanson: AMEN.

SingleDad:
If we need financial incentives to ensure the next generation, why is anyone having children in China or India where overpopulation is a disincentive.

Even if I had to pay a fee for every child, I’d still have them, and I bet plenty of others would as well. I just hope the doomsayers here change their tunes when a few smart alecks decide that we have enough children and ought to start sterilizing the poor. (After all, we must strike a balance between society’s and individual’s needs, right? Wouldn’t want to be selfish and refuse that vasectomy.)

As far as I’m concerned, the government shouldn’t be in the business of modifying ANY behavior unless it actively protects the rights of the ALREADY-BORN. Cage up a murderer for me, please, but let me decide on my own whether to have children.

Or, you know, curing cancer. Or inventing a better mode of transportation. Or increasing farm yields without increasing costs. Raising children isn’t the only socially useful activity in which one can engage; not that I think you’ve argued that it is, but I don’t want anyone limiting the argument.

As are a number of other activities, some of which I’d sure like time off of work for.

The social utility I receive from the existence of your children is negligible. I have no genetic investment in them.

Like, say, if other people cover your work because you leave early for a soccer game?
Also, what about the existence of charity? That confers no obligation to pay, and I think some parents could afford to be a little bit more charitable.

In theory, yes.

Such as expecting your childless co-workers to work more hours and cover you when you leave to do things with your kids?

Nearly all of your arguments can be reversed. Everything is a two-way street.

From SingleDad -

"Parenthood is damn hard work. The benefits one receives from society, even from one’s children is minimal compared to the work. Parents do what they do because of a connection and the duty of fulfillment of obligations to humanity and their own culture as a whole.

"Any person who accepts the benefit of society without fulfilling their obligations to society is a parasite. I am not a parasite. I am fulfilling my duty both immediately (by supporting myself) and to the future (by raising my children).

“But I’m the big sap, I guess. All of humanity existed to make our own generation. We might as well just rape the world, forget about having children, and let the human race die out. Small loss, given some of the examples I’ve seen.”

You are still assuming that parenthood is such a horrific occupation that only through onerous social obligation and generous governmental and employer incentives will couples raise children. In fact, you argue that this obligation is so overpowering that those who not fall sway to it are parasites. You are clearly not a parasite, you have undertaken a grueling, thankless job whose rewards are minimal (your words here) and you have done it for the benefit of the rest of us. Actually, SingleDad, this does not make you a dad. It makes you a martyr, and mercifully, a very unrecognized martyr.

Never once have you waxed eloquently about the joys of parenting. Never once have you acknowledge that enormous numbers of couples raise kids just for the sheer love and not the social obligation or the tax benefits. Children are not the future workers of America, they are simply children to be raised with love and joy and fulfillment.

Eliminate the social obligation to have kids and eliminate those government/employer incentives - the species will do just fine. There will be scads of kids to fill out following generations. Believe it or not, some parents adore raising children.

Bringing children into the world because of social obligation seems genuinely unhealthy for parents and children alike. “Son, I raised you to fulfill my society obligations and duties. I’m sorry that I was a cold and distant father but society never said I should raise you well, just raise you. Now go out and dig ditches for future generations of mediocrity.”

OK…point by point here…

“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.”

But that’s just it…most parents I know don’t DO that…they buy unnecessary things like big-screen TV’s, or a bigger truck, with any extra money. Very few are actually usingt it to improves their children’s lives.

“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.”

Then…why is it more kids today are shooting, robbing, in general being “bad”, having ADD, ODD & stuff OUR parents never heard of…OUR parents managed just fine without all these incentives to have kids, or subsidizing them.
Matter of fact, I believe we turned out better than what these parents today with all their “help & needs” are turning out.

C’mon, SingleDad. “Childfree” is only offensive if you’re the one picking nits. And perhaps you do fulfill your “societal responsibilities” as a parent. Bully for you. Many don’t, and as a taxpayer who contributes to the financing of these children, I’d like some say in how they’re raised and when they should be removed from their parents - my tax dollars have gone to more than one person for kids that should have been taken away for the childrens’ own safety.

As far as sterilizing the poor, I’d say your views put our society much more in danger of that. According to your views (as I have read them), children are a societal obligation without which we are merely parasites. I’d have to agree with other posters - there are many other things I can do to contribute to our society besides have/raise children.

I’d also like to know why it seems that children take so much more money than they used to - maybe the Sega Mega Stations, Ford Behemoths, and Tommy Wholefinger stuff could be replaced by things that money can’t buy? Time? Attention? The teaching of individual responsibility? I don’t have a problem with chipping in for “needs”. It’s financing what I suspect are really “wants” that I have trouble with.

Despite the sidetracking into social eugenics-type thinking…The funny thing is that nobody seems to recall that childfree people usually have parents/siblings/other family members. I AM fulfilling my societal obligation by paying for a child - my sister. And I would be fulfulling more of that obligation if less of my paycheck were cut every week…I don’t deny personal tragedies happen, and I have a great deal of sympathy. But I think anyone could truly see why it rankles to pay for a tax break for someone with children who makes more than my husband and I do.
Taxes that go to the Sioux tribe’s Rosebud reservation? Great. Now, those of you in favor of tax breaks for those making over 60K a year, how many of you have ever tried to raise your child in a Styrofoam hut? Hmm. Looks clear-cut to me.

CuBorab wrote:

Now there’s a good point.

Hey SingleDad: Do you have a Sega system at your house? If so, I definitely want my money back. A check will be fine, but money orders are preferred.

See, this is just the problem. I don’t mind being taxed to help those who are in dire financial straits. But in this particular case, we are being taxed to subsidize the lifestyles of middle class families.

Please stop with the “It’s for the children,” argument, because that doesn’t fly. It’s for the parents, and more specifically, it’s to win the votes of those parents.

Millions for charity, not one penny to fill up the tank on your SUV.

  1. Raising children is hard work

Agreed. So is learning to play the oboe. It’s also probably personally rewarding for those that decide to do it, otherwise no one would do it.

  1. Children have social utility as well as personal utility.

You benefit from having kids. I do not. If you happen to raise them well, and they become productive tax-paying adults, then they will benefit society, and get their rewards in terms of income and shiny trophies and what-all. If you didn’t have them, someone else would. That’s obvious.

  1. If a group receives utility from a person they accept an obligation to pay for that utility

I have no problem funding things like schools, because I want the kids to be educated. I’ll pay for welfare, so poor kids can eat. I will not pay for you to have children, solely because they’re children. Show me a need, not a want.

  1. Parents accept (in theory) a great deal of demands from society in the manner in which they raise their children.

I’m assuming if ‘society’ said it was OK to raise little hell-beasts, you’d place no behavioral constraints upon them? The idea of being responsible for your choices, not to mention that of a job well done has lost it’s charm, and the only thing that keeps parents from letting their children be raised as homicidal maniacs, I suppose, is society.

  1. When a group makes demands of an individual, they are again obliged to pay for that right.

I certainly have not demanded that you raise children. I do demand that if you decide to become a parent, you should do it well. If you choose parenthood, part of your obligation is to do a good job. If you choose to drive a car, in the USA you need to drive on the right side of the road. It is rather silly for you to threaten to drive on the wrong side of the road unless you’re paid not to.

Perhaps some would not. Those that would would have a more difficult time raising their children, and their children would be that worse as members of society in adulthood.

Again, you’re holding us hostage- give me money, or I’ll raise my children badly! I should hope that if you can’t raise your children properly on your own, that you’d think twice about taking on the task to begin with.

But what do you (the generic you) care? You’ve got yours, the next generation can live in igorance and poverty for all you care.

Paying for education and aid to the poor is not an issue here; it’s wealthy people who want hand-outs, while cutting welfare programs. Part of the argument in ‘Baby Boon’ is that it’s not about helping the children, it’s about helping the parents of the right kind of children.

Parenthood is damn hard work. The benefits one receives from society, even from one’s children is minimal compared to the work. Parents do what they do because of a connection and the duty of fulfillment of obligations to humanity and their own culture as a whole.

This is the biggest load of BS I think I’ve ever heard. Parents, generally, wax eloquent about the joys of raising children. I’ve heard that they love the idea of being able to pass on their wisdom, of having someone carry on the family name/genes, having someone to love, to take care of them when they’re older, and many others. I have never heard of any parent who said ‘I’m having children to fulfill my duty to humanity.’

But I’m the big sap, I guess. All of humanity existed to make our own generation. We might as well just rape the world, forget about having children, and let the human race die out. Small loss, given some of the examples I’ve seen.

It’s interesting that you string these concepts together the way you do. We are raping the world- to support our over-sized population. Meaning, children. An American child uses as many resources as several third-world children (I’ve read figures ranging from three to 600, depending on the country and the source). All that food and plastic and gasoline and so forth needed to support that population is crowding out a lot of other life that isn’t human. We’d actually be doing the world as a whole a big favor of we did die out. So, perhaps in a sense, people that don’t have kids are doing so out of a ‘connection and the duty of fulfillment of obligations to the planet and their own biosphere as a whole.’ You’re welcome.

Society sets standards (and rightly so) which I must fulfill as a parent. I don’t resent such standards.
I just object to people who think that doctors and engineers and janitors and and customer service reps and phone technicians, and construction workers just spring out of nowhere to keep the world running for the next generation. You think that civilization will just be around to support you in your old age, without taking any steps to preserve it.

Wrong. When a plumber comes and fixes my leaky faucet, I’ll write him a big ol’ check for his trouble. If a little kid decides to be a plumber, presumably he can assume that he’ll be rewarded. People have been making more people without help from the rest of us for long enough (and are still doing it in other countries); we don’t need to take any steps to make sure reproduction keeps happening. In fact, as noted above, it’s happening at a rate that is going to hurt us all in the long run if we don’t take steps to slow it down some. What those steps should be is a different topic, but refusing to reward people just because they reproduce is probably a logical first step.

And note that regardless of your financial planning for your old age, you have to have civilization itself around to give that money meaning. You can’t eat paper money or bank accounts. Unless you’re stocking up 15-25 years of actual food for your retirement, you are assuming that my children will be around to give that money meaning.

Wrong again. I’m assuming adults will be here. And it’s a pretty good bet that civilization will exist when I’m old. A bigger threat to civilization is that we exceed our capacity to support the population and have famines, plagues, and wretched living conditions. Or more than we have now, at any rate. Sure, call me alarmist. But I’ll lay odds that my scenario is a hell of a lot more likely than the one you seem to be putting forth- if we don’t subsidize reproduction, humanity will die out.