In this society, we are all forced to subsidize things that we are not directly responsible for.
I am not:
[ul][li]A gov’t research grant recipient[/li][li]A food stamp recipient[/li][li]In government supported housing[/li][li]An immigrant[/ul][/li]
Yet my tax dollars pay for these and other programs, whether I support them or not. I either must deal with it, leave the country, find a way to convince my government officials to come up with something better.
All those who believe in telekinesis raise my hand.
Well, not to speak for Delta-9, but maybe he thinks something similar to what I think about the subject. I am just as willing to let parants have a deduction for dependents as I am to help pay for those other things. To me, helping out people with that additional expense is as good a cause as any of those other causes.
Of course, I may not mean much by that, if I don’t believe in any of them.
I have no problem spending money where it’s truly needed. I **do[/] have a problem with spending money on what is nothing more than welfare for middle to upper class parents who don’t need it. If you’re going to cut taxes, cut them across the board. Don’t just cut the taxes of parents (in effect putting more of a burden on me) for no good reason other than to pander to a targeted voting bloc.
I decided to take advantage of the OP’s traditional privilege of offering some Century Musings after the first hundred posts. (To paraphrase Charlie Brown: “Well, somebody has to make up those traditions, you know!”) I have a rather, er, maternal feeling about my first very own SDMB thread and am pleased to see it thriving (although the discussion has gotten a bit heated at times).
First, some actual information that some posters requested: the current federal $500 child tax credit (which is only one of several deductions for dependents, of course) dates back to 1995, and an interesting discussion of it by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is at http://www.cbpp.org/hsectc.htm
From this it seems pretty clear to me that this tax credit, however deserved and necessary it may be for the middle class, is failing to provide similar relief to lower-income parents who probably need it even more.
Now for my Century Musings:
I was rather startled to see how much hostility seemed to be generated on both sides of the debate, with epithets like “whiny parasite” flung about equally in both directions. Is this necessary? (It’s especially startling in the case of someone like SingleDad, who made my Most Admired Posters list early on precisely because of the tolerance and calm clear thinking he usually displays. [/suckup]) Aren’t we all basically in agreement that society as a whole should be supportive of child-rearing and of other non-income-producing contributions like caring for other dependents (human and otherwise), volunteerism, and creative accomplishments? I never saw such a bunch of remarkably responsible and involved individuals (your kids, your pets, your disabled friends, your committees—gosh! My only dependent at present is a pretty low-maintenance canary and sometimes even he seems like just a fluffy little pain in the tuchus to me) being so quick to label one another “selfish”.
I’m thinking that perhaps this tension stems largely from our culture’s being in a classic pendulum swing at the moment. Up till a few decades ago, “involved parenting” and “professional career” hardly belonged in the same sentence: the widespread gender-based division of labor in families meant that the person who was doing most of the child-rearing wasn’t getting paid and the person who was doing most of the income-earning wasn’t changing diapers, etc. This meant that aside from (sometimes) providing higher salaries for heads of households, employers could basically ignore the existence of employees’ families most of the time. Since ignoring something is usually cheaper (in the short term) than any of the alternatives, this corporate attitude persisted even after that pattern of gender roles started doing some serious changing. Parents (particularly mothers) got so sick of this (hey, fellow thirty-plusers, remember when it seemed that most working women’s husbands and employers routinely expected them to do a full-time job and all the child-care and all the housework?) that they rebelled. The stress of that conflict (which isn’t over yet, by any means) is perhaps what’s fueling both some parental aggressiveness (“you have to make allowances for the requirements of my children!”) and some non-parental hostility (“the requirements of your children are not more important than my own choices!”).
Whatever its source, this tension seems to be generating some rather overheated thinking from time to time. C’mon folks, I’m sure that if we simmer down and take a few deep breaths we’ll all agree that opposing a middle-class child tax credit is not somehow equivalent to renouncing all one’s obligations to the human race, and likewise that providing a tax credit for children is not somehow fundamentally different from paying for schools or other services for children (what, you think we have a societal obligation to teach them algebra but not to feed and clothe them? “Millions for Internet hookups but not one cent for peanut butter!”). I think we’ll all have a better discussion if we stop letting our bruised feelings of victimhood get in the way. (No, I don’t know who appointed me Chief Facilitator either—I just do what the voices tell me. :))
When we haven’t let our bruised feelings of victimhood get in the way, we’ve come up with some damn good points. I especially like cher3’s comment that quarrels between parents and non-parents are wasting an opportunity for a united front to put pressure on employers and legislators for more useful benefits for everyone. Agreed, comrades? Then forward to the barricades! (“la-la la-LA LA, la la-la LA la-la,…”)
All right, that should hold me for the next hundred posts or so…
Kimstu
proud OP (“but no way am I ever gonna have another one!”)
I agree that we should close tax loopholes and would actually love to just see something like:
How much money did you earn for which
no taxes were withheld? ______
Multiple line 1 by .20 ______
Please send a check for the amount listed
on Line 2 to:
Internal Revenue Service
1 Tax Ct.
Washington D.C.
In this thread, we’ve been turning a critical eye towards the child credit, but by no means should that stop us from investigating all of the other credits and deductions that make our tax code so insanely complicated.
I assume no such thing. I’m arguing that those who don’t contribute in some way to the future of our culture and species are parasites.
Agreed. A very important point, and one which I support fully.
meara:
We don’t need them. They are merely socially useful.
Of course. I’ve never argued that each individual has an obligation to procreate, only that each has an obligation in some manner to support procreation in general.
pldennison:
All of which are paid for collectively through our taxes because we derive indirect benefit from them all.
Take that up with your employer. If he agrees they have social utility, you might persuade him.
You receive social utility from living in a self-perpetuating society where you are capable of specializing and thus increasing your efficiency. I assume you’re not a farmer and growing your own food. Children are a necessary part of such a self-perpetuating society.
Yes. But that aspect of obligation and benefit is determined by each private employer; Since no one has to (or has the ability to) cover for me when I’m gone, I’m not in a position to extensively debate this point.
miscwit
No, I’m arguing that since the economic demands of parenthood are so great, we ask our single brethren for a little help here and there. However, in the larger sense, if parenthood is allowed to become a significant economic penalty, the quality of future generations will surely suffer. Yes, people will still have children, it’s a strong biological imperative. But they won’t be as well raised, and the quality of our civilization would quickly degenerate.
To a certain extent you’re mistaking my debating style with my personal life. In a debate such as this, I’m going to emphasize the aspects of the situation that I see as relevant. When someone asserts that I’m “ripping off the ‘child-free,’” I’m going to counter that it’s a pretty lousy scam. As Frank Zappa points out, I could make more money as a butcher.
But it is true that I’m no Ozzie Nelson. My parenthood was not the result of the expression of love between a man and a woman, nor of the overriding desire to find a child to love. Rather, I faced the difficult choice of becoming a parent or watching two members of my extended family die due to the incompetence of a family member. There were no other options.
I’m also a fairly self-contained and rationalistic person. I’m not, by nature, emotionally demontrative. You may consider that self-deprecatory, but I am who I am. Rearing children has provided me with opportunities for tremendous personal growth and the expression of love.
Overall, however, my personal gratification in being a parent is not relevant to this debate. As an analogy, I love writing computer programs, I even do it in my spare time. But my employer cannot cite that fact to adjust my compensation. He must pay me my handsome salary because he derives utility from my work regardless of the personal utility I myself derive.
Natalie99:
The fallacy of hasty generalization. I know a lot of parents. The vast majority take very good care of their children. The opportunity to purchase luxuries is about a quarter to half that of single people in the same income range. The tax break is a small fraction of expenses necessary to rear children. Additionally, most of the benefit parents receive is indirect: largely education and health care.
I agree completely. The difficulties I myself faced as a blood relative in removing my children from an abusive and neglectful environment were monumental. More attention is needed by our society to the well-being of individual children in horrible environments.
CuBorab:
[quote]
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? Atten
"There is a class of *heroes and heroines that provide the glue that
keeps our society alive and healthy: soldiers, police officers, firefighters,
EMTs, clergyment, teachers and parents. Such people are called by a powerful inner voice to sacrifice for the sake of our culture, our society and our species. But sacrifice they do, and for that they deserve our respect
and support. "
I guess you’ll never really get the point I’m trying to make, SingleDad - childrearing is a CHOICE.I find it ironic that you indicate that I do not do everything out of altruism (a little sarcasm there on your part), but expect me to think of your choice to rear children that way. I’d argue that there IS no altruism - but that’s a different argument.
“I would be more than happy to trade income and expenses with you and your husband,
tax break and all.”
My goodness, what a sweeping statement.I sincerely doubt it - we’re under the 50K line, which does not go far (no, we have no SUV, no cable, etc.)what with student loans and familial obligations. I am attending law school this fall (and would be happy to consult with you - pro bono- on the issue of your “uninsurable” child when I actually have the education to do so)and, quite frankly, if other folks don’t stop putting their hands in my pockes, I’ll never be able to pay for my first year. What was it you said - you argue your self-benefit, I’ll argue mine? I will be charitable towards those in need any time I can be. But I remain unconvinced that certain people are in need just because they chose to have children. I also don’t see why someone who has more money than I do needs any of mine.
I’m also wondering why you seem to have a paranoia about “the undoing of western civilization as we know it”; I don’t see the culture collapsing due to eliminating an unnecessary tax break for people with kids.
Folks, maybe we should move on to the old “Individual vs. Society-as-a-Whole debate”…every time SingleDad posts, I start thinking of the Ayn Rand daycare episode of the Simpsons…
Many people seem to be treating having kids vs. doing something else great for the world as an either/or choice. It is not - there are plenty of people who did both, and sometime produced a child that also accomplished great things. Yes, let’s look at Edison, Bell, Curie, Mozart, and Beethoven:
Edison and Bell were both married men (I believe, I will not swear to Edison,) and probably both had children. From what I know of Bell’s views (and I’d call them biogtries,) I am almost certain that he had children (Bell believed that deaf people should not marry other deaf people; he believed that this would prevent them from having deaf children. He was also an important oralist in this country, but that’s another Great Debate.)
Mme Curie definitely did have children – 2 daughters, Irene and Eve. And Irene was an important scientist herself, who worked in her mother’s field (and died prematurely of cancer like her mother.) Her full name was Irene Joliet-Curie (her husband was scientist Frederic Joliet, who also changed his name to Joliet-Curie.)
Mozart was married to Constance Webber, and did have several children. Yes, none of them composed like their father, but Mozart died still young, and that’s a hell of a lot to live up to.
Beethoven – I don’t think he had children. That’s one from your list. And to counter, I’ll add: the Bach musical dynasty, John/Abigail Adams & son J.Q., and the Barrymores. Of course there will be counterexamples to these, but I’m sure there are eminent parent/children units I’ve neglected. And how eminent/competant/good must you be before your life is worth the resources it took to create you, and that you consume?
Caveat - of course no one should be forced to have children, nor should they be bothered about their decision one way or the other. And yes, I’ve gotten away from the OP.
Let’s crunch some numbers here. I don’t know what your tax rate is, but for the sake of argument, I’m gonna guess 29%. (You can correct me if I’m wrong.)
That means with your total deduction of $7000 you are getting a net benefit of $2030 per year. Add in the two tax credits and the sum is $2230.00 per year.
That figures out to a benefit to you of $185.83 per month. In spite of your efforts to belittle the benefit you are receiving, that is not a negligible sum. And it is, in effect coming out of the pocket of a childless taxpayer.
You have said yourself that you make good money. You have that Sega system. Sounds like you have a nice home. You don’t need that money. It is unconcionable for you to cause a childless taxpayer to bear that extra burden. $185.83 per month will buy a lot of groceries for a young childless couple trying to get their start in life.
I am a Democrat, SingleDad. You’re going to have a hard time pigeonholing me with the Ayn Rand camp. I have no problem with government assistance for those who really need it. Sorry, but in my view (as a moderate-to-liberal Democrat) middle- and upper-class parents don’t qualify.
Spoke, I couldn’t agree more. Help only to those in need - heck, if people were encouraged to have only as many children as they could afford without outside intervention, maybe quality of life would improve for many, many members of this “society” SingleDad keeps talking about - notice under his “heroes and heroines” that there are no artists, no wildlife rescuers, no musicians…
Iolanthe – thanks so much for the correction (and the fascinating history lesson; I’ll have to keep that in mind).
I guess my point is that each person has their own contribution to make, and frankly, I’d like to see each person do what makes them happy and what they’re good at. If that’s being a parent, fine. If that means other contributions, fine. If that means BOTH, that’s fine too!
But I do NOT believe that contributing to society means “sacrificing”. On the contrary, I believe it means making the most of the life and talents you’ve been given. Those efforts are bound to benefit society in SOME way, to somebody, and no one has the right to judge whether it’s “enough” or “not enough”.
I understand that this issue is not relevant for you at this point at your job, but the issue is relevant for many of us.
I have a problem with this - not with letting parents leave early to do this or that with their kids (I remember my dad getting off early to see my school events, I know how wonderful that was.) BUT, the assumption amongst many employers that a single person must cover for the parents, because of course, whatever the single person does after hours isn’t as important as what the parent does. In my case, as I previously mentioned, I was taking care of my handicapped sister, and elderly handicapped friend. And my boss thought that wasn’t as important. If my boss had her way, I would have worked the day of a major earthquake, and left these vulnerable people alone at home. At this job, I always seemed to be the one working late, because I didn’t have kids. Now, granted, my sister and friend could wait a little later for me to get home and help them out, but sometimes I got tired, sometimes I would have liked “my turn” to NOT leave last. Why couldn’t I have my turn to not leave late?
Kids are important, sure. But it will be hard to convince some employers that other things are just as important. If you are single, you are free as a bird, you don’t have any problems or obligations, so you SHOULD pick up the slack for the parents. I resent this. It’s not true in my case, and doubtless in many other single peoples’ cases.
And, another beef. Why should single people lose out in holidays? Do you think this should happen? One of the complaints single people have is that they never get to spend the holidays with their families (parents, siblings, neices and nephews, etc.) Why is this less important? They want to spend time with their FAMILIES, after all. Why is it expected of a single person to miss out in holidays? (This has not happened to me at my job - we all got holidays off.) This also is a bone of contention for me.
You said it, y-babe.I haven’t run into this, either, but my husband sure has.
SingleDad seems to feel that employers let the child-having have these little perks because childrearing has social value. I would argue that they are merely afraid of getting their #@! sued off. No-one has sued for not being allowed to go play golf.
Maybe the parents of the world are just more willing to stick by their guns because work is not their #1 priority.
Boss: “You have to work on (insert holiday here)”
Parent: “No way no how. I am not going to miss spending (insert holiday here) with my family.”
Boss: (Thinks to himself) “Darn I gotta find someone else… hmmm how about that single guy?”
People without children can do the same thing. I do it all the time.
Boss: “You have to work on (insert holiday here)”
Single: “I can’t do it. I have plans to eat dinner with (insert friend or realtive here).”
Boss: (Thinks to himself) “Darn I gotta find someone else…”
etc. Sometimes the Boss will insist and sometimes the Boss won’t. It happens to parents and singles alike. It comes down to how far you are willing to go to stay out of work that day and how much the Boss wants you there. I think a large part is that parents are more often willing to call the Boss’ bluff than non-parents.
But as I said before, it can work both ways. In my area, the parents seem to be working late more often than us single, non-parents.
If the Boss has a policy about giving parents more time off, then I agree that that is wrong.
“Maybe the parents of the world are just more willing to stick by their guns because work is not their #1 priority.”
It’s not mine, either, PeeQueue, and I can assure you that the idea of getting sued is definitely in these folks’ minds (in cases where it looks like this will be an issue). It’s easier to stick to your guns when there’s a good chance you’ll hit your target.
“Maybe the parents of the world are just more willing to stick by their guns because work is not their #1 priority.”
It’s not mine, either, PeeQueue, and I can assure you that the idea of getting sued is definitely in these folks’ minds (in cases where it looks like this will be an issue). It’s easier to stick to your guns when there’s a good chance you’ll hit your target.
“Maybe the parents of the world are just more willing to stick by their guns because work is not their #1 priority.”
It’s not mine, either, PeeQueue, and I can assure you that the idea of getting sued is definitely in these folks’ minds (in cases where it looks like this will be an issue). It’s easier to stick to your guns when there’s a good chance you’ll hit your target.
I understand. I’m not saying its an irrelevant discussion, just that I have no basis to contribute. As a computer programmer, I’ve never been in a job where people had the need or the ability to cover for each other. I’ve had to “cover” for myself, working a weekend to make up for time lost during the week, but I’ve had to do that without children.
Personally, were I a manager or business owner (very little likelihood there!) I would consider a loyal employee more valuable than a couple extra hours work.
Let’s look at this the other way around. I’m in the top 10% (at least) of income. My salary has almost always been over the median througout my adult life. Even now, I’m paying ~$20,000/year just in federal income and Medicare taxes, another $5,000 in state taxes, $2,500 in property taxes, and god knows how much in sales taxes.
Over my lifetime, I will certainly use less tax dollars than I am contributing, even considering my dependent and mortgage interest deductions. My tax deductions aren’t “coming out of anyone’s pocket.” Because I have children, my surplus contribution is slightly reduced.
I am not sucking off the public teat here. I’m not ripping anyone off. The government is graciously allowing me to use a little more of my own income to support my children.
As a very productive person (as measured by my income) I have the obligation to support society to a greater extent than I receive support from that society. And I’m proud of fulfilling that obligation. Even with children, I’m still fulfilling that obligation, just $185.83 less per month.
I frankly resent you saying, in essence, that I’m not doing enough.
and am pleased to see it thriving (although the discussion has gotten a bit heated at times).