Purchasing a fancy car is a voluntary decision that has the useful side effect of creating wealth (by increasing demand for the creation of products from raw materials.)
Providing for a child is not voluntary. Society demands that parents are to care for their children, and that people have a fundamental right to procreate.
So, to clarify:
Procreation = fundamental right and heavy financial burden, with little immediate gain for Society.
Fancy car = not a right, but a heavy financial burden, but creates wealth for Society immediately.
Of course children are citizens, and human beings - has anyone suggested that they are not? That doesn’t mean that they aren’t also financial burdens - merely that they shouldn’t be viewed SOLELY as financial burdens.
And yes - a household with four people in it (two of whom are incapable of working) is in a different financial situation than a household with two people, both of whom are working, or a household with four people, all of whom are working. Why is the AGE of the two non-working individuals important?
But why should this be done by means of CHILD tax credits (as opposed to a larger DEPENDENT deduction, which also recognizes the burden ADULT dependents impose on a household)? What makes children “worthier” dependents than (for example) severely mentally handicapped adults? Why don’t the people supporting adult dependents get the same tax breaks? Right now, they don’t - and I for one think that is wrong.