Oh dear, its threads like this which make me wonder… (and for the record, I am neither a home-owner nor a parent.)
Economically speaking there are any number of perfectly good reasons for tax policies such as minor subventions for parents and home owners. We may easily add political-economic or socio-economic justifications to a more purely economic justification.
In regards to subventions to home owners, the question here is one of property ownership and what is widely considered to be the large positive economic externalities to having widespread property ownership. Widespread home ownership also clearly has positive political and social implications in re both stability and investment in free market norms which are not to be assumed. A comparison with countries without widespread home ownership would probably be instructive — I should try to scare up some data if I get a chance, but in any case I believe it is fair to say that economists widely consider home-ownership to have large positive effects in aggregate economic terms. The key is aggregate.
The same concept in regards to children and the directing of social support to their effective raising and education. First, regardless of andros and others self-confidence in regards to their investing abilities, the ability to cash in on this will be largely determined by future economic conditions. These in turn are dependent on the future work force, in part its size, in part its productivity. Despite one poster’s assertion about the crassness of depending on future generations, I’m afraid that is basic to all individual and aggregate planning. Crass? Maybe, but no escaping although one can paper over the reality, despite assertions of “true independence or what not”. Not that I am implying that somehow without a tax credit here or there, one will have economic collapse, but only that there are collectively rational justifications.
So, in terms of social policy what are the concerns? Well, you do need a future work force that is large enough to support future retirees. That is not solely from taxes to social security and medicare but also implicit supports in terms of a market for whatever securities etc. the future retirees will be selling to support themselves. No market, no wealth. You’re fucked. Of course size is not the only consideration as higher productivity of course should allow a smaller number workers to support more non-productive members of society. Nonetheless we would want to avoid a too abrupt demographic transition — Japan may face serious issues in this regard in the future if they refuse to import workers — either through native natality or through imported natality, i.e. immigrants. Further, in regards to productivity, one can fairly clearly see that this depends to a great extent upon education of the workforce, so once more it is in your individual interest to support as much education as is effective to create future productivity so that future active populations can either directly or indirectly support your old ass.
So, although this thread is a perfect example of the individually rational but collectively non- optimal thinking which leads to under-investment, above all in areas like education and the like, I don’t see any valid objections here.